Hi
I hope someone can help me with this
I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I''ve done to
validate that there''s no evaluation with 2 question with the same
number is
validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope
=> :evaluation_id
but when I try to update a question''s content I got an error message
that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken"
and that means that the validation works, but not as I want
Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this
- Question Model
IF ("def create" or something)
do the validation
elsif ("def update")
don''t do it
end
I hope someone can help me
Thanks in advance
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 4 November 2011 15:40, JavierQQ <jquarites-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi > > I hope someone can help me with this > > I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I''ve done to > validate that there''s no evaluation with 2 question with the same > number is > > validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope > => :evaluation_id > > but when I try to update a question''s content I got an error message > that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken" > and that means that the validation works, but not as I want > > Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this > - Question Model > > IF ("def create" or something) > do the validation > elsif ("def update") > don''t do it > endI don''t know what you mean by "def" but if you want to do conditional validations have a look at the Rails Guide on validations and it will show you how. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
What I mean by "def" is the basic CRUD that rails provide def create .... end def update ... end def new ... end I want that the data validates in 2 cases (create / update) because when I want to update , for example: Evaluation 1 - Question 1 If I update question 1 and change the content, and then I save it shows a error message that says "The number is being used" (and that shows that validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope works) I want that it only validates it when I''m CREATING a new one, not when I''m UPDATING How can I do that? On 4 nov, 10:55, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 4 November 2011 15:40, JavierQQ <jquari...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > I hope someone can help me with this > > > I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I''ve done to > > validate that there''s no evaluation with 2 question with the same > > number is > > > validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope > > => :evaluation_id > > > but when I try to update a question''s content I got an error message > > that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken" > > and that means that the validation works, but not as I want > > > Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this > > - Question Model > > > IF ("def create" or something) > > do the validation > > elsif ("def update") > > don''t do it > > end > > I don''t know what you mean by "def" but if you want to do conditional > validations have a look at the Rails Guide on validations and it will > show you how. > > Colin-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 4 November 2011 16:05, JavierQQ <jquarites-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I want that it only validates it when I''m CREATING a new one, not when > I''m UPDATING > > How can I do that?That is not really a function of the controller action, it is just whether you are creating a record or updating an existing one. Did you read the guide as I suggested? Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
I''m doing it :) but I read in another place, that its not safe.. or not recommended to access a controller from a model is that true? Those def were created when I made rails g scaffold On 4 nov, 11:21, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 4 November 2011 16:05, JavierQQ <jquari...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > I want that it only validates it when I''m CREATING a new one, not when > > I''m UPDATING > > > How can I do that? > > That is not really a function of the controller action, it is just > whether you are creating a record or updating an existing one. Did > you read the guide as I suggested? > > Colin-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 4 November 2011 16:25, JavierQQ <jquarites-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I''m doing it :) > but I read in another place, that its not safe.. or not recommended to > access a controller from a model > is that true?Please don''t top post, it makes it difficult to follow the thread. Insert your reply at appropriate points in previous message. Thanks. As I said you do not need to access the controller. It is entirely within the model. The model knows whether it is being asked to create a new record or to update an existing one. Look at section 4.4 in the guide (:on) Colin> > Those def were created when I made rails g scaffold > > On 4 nov, 11:21, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On 4 November 2011 16:05, JavierQQ <jquari...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I want that it only validates it when I''m CREATING a new one, not when >> > I''m UPDATING >> >> > How can I do that? >> >> That is not really a function of the controller action, it is just >> whether you are creating a record or updating an existing one. Did >> you read the guide as I suggested? >> >> Colin > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > >-- gplus.to/clanlaw -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Nov 4, 4:05 pm, JavierQQ <jquari...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I want that the data validates in 2 cases (create / update) > because when I want to update , for example: > > Evaluation 1 > - Question 1 > > If I update question 1 and change the content, and then I save > it shows a error message that says "The number is being used" (and > that shows that > validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope works) > I want that it only validates it when I''m CREATING a new one, not when > I''m UPDATING >validations are fundamentally ignorant of what it is that has caused save to be called (i.e. it doesn''t know what action, controller etc. There might not even be a controller if the code was being run from a background task). The validation methods do take an on option (:on => :create or :on => :update) but you should understand that this refers to whether active record is create or updating an object and has nothing to do with what controller action was involved. However, validates_uniqueness_of should already be adding a condition to the query so that when updating an existing object it doesn''t find itself, so I''m not sure why you''re running into this Fred> How can I do that? > > On 4 nov, 10:55, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 4 November 2011 15:40, JavierQQ <jquari...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > I hope someone can help me with this > > > > I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I''ve done to > > > validate that there''s no evaluation with 2 question with the same > > > number is > > > > validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope > > > => :evaluation_id > > > > but when I try to update a question''s content I got an error message > > > that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken" > > > and that means that the validation works, but not as I want > > > > Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this > > > - Question Model > > > > IF ("def create" or something) > > > do the validation > > > elsif ("def update") > > > don''t do it > > > end > > > I don''t know what you mean by "def" but if you want to do conditional > > validations have a look at the Rails Guide on validations and it will > > show you how. > > > Colin-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Hi Colin. I asked about this before in this list. There are no preferences in this list, so that is where the list stands. As for top posting, that is an old school habit. Top posting is indeed effective for many people. This message can be clear with historical references down below. It isn''t imperative as the text I am adding to this thread, which you are reading now. So, it is secondary to my reply. It IS included below, but it isn''t necessary as this message is directed towards yourself. You know what you put before, and it''s in your head. If your theory was correct, then every message would have to be quoted in every post. If not, then your email application should have some way of organizing individual messages in order for you to follow the long presentation. A problem with quoting and inserting intermixed is that it gets ugly. A problem with bottom posting is the need to scroll every message that comes into view. My point is that people have different preferences, and the bottom posting preference only belongs to some. Please don''t expect everybody to follow your preference. It is not carved in stone, and can be managed in the preferences of most major email applications for that reason. On 2011-11-04, at 12:35 PM, Colin Law wrote:> Please don''t top post, it makes it difficult to follow the thread. > Insert your reply at appropriate points in previous message. Thanks.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Because as an example I have Evaluation 1 - Question 1 - Question 2 If I edit question 2 and change the number it will allow me to do that and it will show this Evaluation 1 - Question 1 - Question 1 And that''s what I want to avoid I tried validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id, :on => :create and it works, but when I edit, I can do what I mention On 4 nov, 11:42, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Nov 4, 4:05 pm, JavierQQ <jquari...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > I want that the data validates in 2 cases (create / update) > > because when I want to update , for example: > > > Evaluation 1 > > - Question 1 > > > If I update question 1 and change the content, and then I save > > it shows a error message that says "The number is being used" (and > > that shows that > > validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope works) > > I want that it only validates it when I''m CREATING a new one, not when > > I''m UPDATING > > validations are fundamentally ignorant of what it is that has caused > save to be called (i.e. it doesn''t know what action, controller etc. > There might not even be a controller if the code was being run from a > background task). > > The validation methods do take an on option (:on => :create or :on > => :update) but you should understand that this refers to whether > active record is create or updating an object and has nothing to do > with what controller action was involved. > > However, validates_uniqueness_of should already be adding a condition > to the query so that when updating an existing object it doesn''t find > itself, so I''m not sure why you''re running into this > > Fred > > > > > > > > > How can I do that? > > > On 4 nov, 10:55, Colin Law <clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > On 4 November 2011 15:40, JavierQQ <jquari...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > I hope someone can help me with this > > > > > I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I''ve done to > > > > validate that there''s no evaluation with 2 question with the same > > > > number is > > > > > validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope > > > > => :evaluation_id > > > > > but when I try to update a question''s content I got an error message > > > > that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken" > > > > and that means that the validation works, but not as I want > > > > > Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this > > > > - Question Model > > > > > IF ("def create" or something) > > > > do the validation > > > > elsif ("def update") > > > > don''t do it > > > > end > > > > I don''t know what you mean by "def" but if you want to do conditional > > > validations have a look at the Rails Guide on validations and it will > > > show you how. > > > > Colin-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Nov 4, 2011, at 9:44 AM, BeeRich wrote:> Hi Colin. I asked about this before in this list. There are no preferences in this list, so that is where the list stands. > > As for top posting, that is an old school habit. Top posting is indeed effective for many people. This message can be clear with historical references down below. It isn''t imperative as the text I am adding to this thread, which you are reading now. So, it is secondary to my reply. It IS included below, but it isn''t necessary as this message is directed towards yourself. You know what you put before, and it''s in your head. If your theory was correct, then every message would have to be quoted in every post. If not, then your email application should have some way of organizing individual messages in order for you to follow the long presentation. A problem with quoting and inserting intermixed is that it gets ugly. A problem with bottom posting is the need to scroll every message that comes into view. > > My point is that people have different preferences, and the bottom posting preference only belongs to some. Please don''t expect everybody to follow your preference. It is not carved in stone, and can be managed in the preferences of most major email applications for that reason.---- it seems pretty clear that the logical flow of top to bottom favors bottom posting for anything beyond a short reply that in essence terminates the discussion. While I am reasonably neutral on the topic myself - the issue really becomes one for those who are taking the time to reply and on a topic that has several replies, the top postings tend to confuse who said what/when. You should keep in mind that those who reply - especially those who are knowledgeable such as Frederick and Colin, I would want to do anything that makes it easy for them to engage/stay engaged but hey, that''s just me. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
I''m sorry if I''m doing something wrong, I''m new in this group and I don''t want to bother anyone, I''m just hitting the reply button and that''s all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 4 November 2011 16:44, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> [snip]> My point is that people have different preferences, and the bottom posting preference only belongs to some. Please don''t expect everybody to follow your preference. It is not carved in stone, and can be managed in the preferences of most major email applications for that reason.I don''t expect everybody to follow my preferences, but if I am spending my time helping someone then I feel at liberty to ask them to post in a manner that makes it easier for me to follow what is going on. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
re-ordering for top -> bottom On Nov 4, 2011, at 9:55 AM, JavierQQ wrote:> On 4 nov, 11:42, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 4:05 pm, JavierQQ <jquari...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I want that the data validates in 2 cases (create / update) >>> because when I want to update , for example: >> >>> Evaluation 1 >>> - Question 1 >> >>> If I update question 1 and change the content, and then I save >>> it shows a error message that says "The number is being used" (and >>> that shows that >>> validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope works) >>> I want that it only validates it when I''m CREATING a new one, not when >>> I''m UPDATING >> >> validations are fundamentally ignorant of what it is that has caused >> save to be called (i.e. it doesn''t know what action, controller etc. >> There might not even be a controller if the code was being run from a >> background task). >> >> The validation methods do take an on option (:on => :create or :on >> => :update) but you should understand that this refers to whether >> active record is create or updating an object and has nothing to do >> with what controller action was involved. >> >> However, validates_uniqueness_of should already be adding a condition >> to the query so that when updating an existing object it doesn''t find >> itself, so I''m not sure why you''re running into this> Because as an example > I have > Evaluation 1 > - Question 1 > - Question 2 > > If I edit question 2 and change the number it will allow me to do that > and it will show this > Evaluation 1 > - Question 1 > - Question 1 > > And that''s what I want to avoid > > I tried validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope > => :evaluation_id, :on => :create > and it works, but when I edit, I can do what I mention---- what is the field/column that is ''Question 1''? Is it one of the fields that you only validate on ''create''? You should probably remove '', :on => :create'' because that won''t protect uniqueness on ''update'' Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 4 November 2011 16:57, JavierQQ <jquarites-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I''m sorry if I''m doing something wrong, > I''m new in this group and I don''t want to bother anyone, > I''m just hitting the reply button and that''s all.Many users, particularly on technical lists, prefer that a reply is inserted at appropriate points into the previous message, so that the full post reads like a question and answer sequence. This requires you to hit reply then scroll through the previous message inserting bits of text at the appropriate points. Whilst doing this you may remove any redundant bits of the previous message. It is not a rule (at least on this list) but many prefer it that way. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 4 nov, 12:11, Craig White <craig.wh...-wmL3h9Ogt9DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Because as an example > > I have > > Evaluation 1 > > - Question 1 > > - Question 2 > > > If I edit question 2 and change the number it will allow me to do that > > and it will show this > > Evaluation 1 > > - Question 1 > > - Question 1 > > > And that''s what I want to avoid > > > I tried validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope > > => :evaluation_id, :on => :create > > and it works, but when I edit, I can do what I mention > > ---- > what is the field/column that is ''Question 1''? Is it one of the fields that you only validate on ''create''? You should probably remove '', :on => :create'' because that won''t protect uniqueness on ''update'' >I''m showing evaluation as it shows on my view EVALUATION Question Content Created by Number 1 (..........) (..........) Edit 2 (..........) (..........) Edit 3 (..........) (..........) Edit In my form question Question number (_______________________________) Content (_______________________________) Created by (_______________________________) Save And for example what If I edit "3" and I change it to "2", it shouldn''t let someone do that -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Nov 4, 2011, at 10:20 AM, JavierQQ wrote: still not entirely clear but I would think that you need to change...>>> validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id, :on => :createto this... validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber -- Craig White ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ craig.white-wmL3h9Ogt9DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org 1.800.869.6908 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.ttiassessments.com Need help communicating between generations at work to achieve your desired success? Let us help! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 4 nov, 12:31, Craig White <craig.wh...-wmL3h9Ogt9DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Nov 4, 2011, at 10:20 AM, JavierQQ wrote: > > still not entirely clear but I would think that you need to change... > > >>> validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id, :on => :create > > to this... > > validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber >I''m doing that because I can create several evaluations and each evaluation has an id, that''s why I''m scoping by evaluation_id I found in section 15 of the validation guide, something about Proc.new What I want to do with update is that when I hit save it first search if the number exists(with a where() I guess), if exist it shouldn''t allow me to update if not, it will let me update the question Do you suggest to use Proc.new? Thanks -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 4 November 2011 17:46, JavierQQ <jquarites-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > On 4 nov, 12:31, Craig White <craig.wh...-wmL3h9Ogt9DQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 2011, at 10:20 AM, JavierQQ wrote: >> >> still not entirely clear but I would think that you need to change... >> >> >>> validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id, :on => :create >> >> to this... >> >> validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber >> > > I''m doing that because I can create several evaluations and each > evaluation has an id, that''s why I''m scoping by evaluation_id > I found in section 15 of the validation guide, something about > Proc.new > What I want to do with update is that when I hit save it first search > if the number exists(with a where() I guess), if exist it shouldn''t > allow me to update > if not, it will let me update the questionYou are still being too vague about your requirement, for me anyway. Can you write the validation test as pseudo code, being absolutely clear about each reference there? Ignore everything about the meaning of the database fields and just write the validation requirement in terms of data in the database and the new data about to be saved, referencing just database fields. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 16:27, Colin Law <clanlaw-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote to JavierQQ <jquarites-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:> You are still being too vague about your requirement, for me anyway.I think I grok what he wants and can express it briefly: the *combination* of evaluation_id and qnumber, must be unique. If that''s right, then the Rails Guide on validation (and callbacks) has a close example: validates :name, :uniqueness => { :scope => :year, :message => "should happen once per year" } but the OP says that: validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id isn''t working, and IIUC should be equivalent to validates :qnumber, :uniqueness => { :scope => :evaluation_id } Just in case I don''t UC: JavierQQ, try this: validates :qnumber, :uniqueness => { :scope => :evaluation_id, :message => "must be unique within each evaluation" } in the model, and let us know what happens. Don''t worry about what controller it''s going through to get there. -Dave PS: As for top vs. bottom posting, another point of list etiquette that some people have been violating is that if you change the subject, change the Subject. :-P -- LOOKING FOR WORK! What: Ruby (on/off Rails), Python, other modern languages. Where: Northern Virginia, Washington DC (near Orange Line), and remote work. See: davearonson.com (main) * codosaur.us (code) * dare2xl.com (excellence). Specialization is for insects. (Heinlein) - Have Pun, Will Babble! (Aronson) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Actually, it doesn''t. The topic is old and argued in very many places. http://www.google.com/search?q=top+posting+vs+bottom+posting Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone''s preferences. That''s it. It can be argued into the ground like it has in the past. Unless a list owner demands it, it''s a topic that will never be solved. My preference is top posting because when I follow a thread, I don''t have to start over every time I come back to the thread. While I don''t really care myself, it''s fine by me that people can post above or below. My mail application can segregate quotations just fine, and I don''t have any problem getting past it. I don''t even notice if it''s top or bottom. I personally don''t like having to scroll down several pages to see someone else say "ya I''ve experienced that result as well". It''s a waste of time, and my right hand isn''t getting any younger every time I use that wheel. On 2011-11-04, at 12:56 PM, Craig White wrote:> it seems pretty clear that the logical flow of top to bottom favors bottom posting for anything beyond a short reply that in essence terminates the discussion. > > While I am reasonably neutral on the topic myself - the issue really becomes one for those who are taking the time to reply and on a topic that has several replies, the top postings tend to confuse who said what/when. You should keep in mind that those who reply - especially those who are knowledgeable such as Frederick and Colin, I would want to do anything that makes it easy for them to engage/stay engaged but hey, that''s just me.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
OK…but then you would also expect other people to expect you to keep a log of how people''s preferences should be, with you responding accordingly? That''s unreasonable. On 2011-11-04, at 1:09 PM, Colin Law wrote:> I don''t expect everybody to follow my preferences, but if I am > spending my time helping someone then I feel at liberty to ask them to > post in a manner that makes it easier for me to follow what is going > on.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Actually, it doesn''t.What doesn''t what?> [snip] > Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone''s preferences.Don''t do it then, I wasn''t arguing, just asking nicely. Colin> That''s it. It can be argued into the ground like it has in the past. Unless a list owner demands it, it''s a topic that will never be solved. > > My preference is top posting because when I follow a thread, I don''t have to start over every time I come back to the thread. While I don''t really care myself, it''s fine by me that people can post above or below. My mail application can segregate quotations just fine, and I don''t have any problem getting past it. I don''t even notice if it''s top or bottom. I personally don''t like having to scroll down several pages to see someone else say "ya I''ve experienced that result as well". It''s a waste of time, and my right hand isn''t getting any younger every time I use that wheel. > > > > On 2011-11-04, at 12:56 PM, Craig White wrote: > >> it seems pretty clear that the logical flow of top to bottom favors bottom posting for anything beyond a short reply that in essence terminates the discussion. >> >> While I am reasonably neutral on the topic myself - the issue really becomes one for those who are taking the time to reply and on a topic that has several replies, the top postings tend to confuse who said what/when. You should keep in mind that those who reply - especially those who are knowledgeable such as Frederick and Colin, I would want to do anything that makes it easy for them to engage/stay engaged but hey, that''s just me. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > >-- gplus.to/clanlaw -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone''s preferences. That''s it. It can be argued into the ground like it has in the past. Unless a list owner demands it, it''s a topic that will never be solved.Unless one realises that it''s not "preference" it''s "ignorance".> My preference is top posting because when I follow a thread, I don''t have to start over every time I come back to the thread.You say in another post that you can''t be expected to recall everyone''s personal preference for type of reply, yet you seem to imply here that you have no problem remembering all the contents of every post in every thread you follow.> I personally don''t like having to scroll down several pages to see someone else say "ya I''ve experienced that result as well". It''s a waste of time, and my right hand isn''t getting any younger every time I use that wheel.Absolutely - those who "bottom post" without snipping are just as ignorant than those that top-post. Neither group is taking any effort to contribute to a conversation, they''re just blurting out their thoughts in one paragraph, and slapping ''send''. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote:> On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> Actually, it doesn''t. > > What doesn''t what?See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom. It was referencing what was quoted down below. Many people don''t like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing.>> [snip] >> Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone''s preferences. > > Don''t do it then, I wasn''t arguing, just asking nicely.People discussing something where contrary opinions are at hand, are in somewhat of a debate. Presentations in such a debate are indeed arguments, and are not meant to convey angry diatribe. That''s what I meant. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 2011-11-05, at 5:22 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:>> Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone''s preferences. That''s it. It can be argued into the ground like it has in the past. Unless a list owner demands it, it''s a topic that will never be solved. > > Unless one realises that it''s not "preference" it''s "ignorance".Because you say so? Again, check the intensity of the google''s hitlist I sent before.>> My preference is top posting because when I follow a thread, I don''t have to start over every time I come back to the thread. > > You say in another post that you can''t be expected to recall > everyone''s personal preference for type of reply, yet you seem to > imply here that you have no problem remembering all the contents of > every post in every thread you follow.If it''s a quick thread, then yes indeed, I do remember the last several comments. Second, like I have said, I regularly quote below and top post. Keeping the thread as well is expected. Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization?>> I personally don''t like having to scroll down several pages to see someone else say "ya I''ve experienced that result as well". It''s a waste of time, and my right hand isn''t getting any younger every time I use that wheel. > > Absolutely - those who "bottom post" without snipping are just as > ignorant than those that top-post. Neither group is taking any effort > to contribute to a conversation, they''re just blurting out their > thoughts in one paragraph, and slapping ''send''.Honestly, I think this is a dead topic. It''s never going to go away. I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 5 November 2011 21:54, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote: > >> On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>> Actually, it doesn''t. >> >> What doesn''t what? > > See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom. It was referencing what was quoted down below.I''m sure you''re trying to be interestingly ironic, but you''re shooting yourself in the foot a little. Yes, of course, it may be "preference" to "quote" from references at the bottom; but normally in this instance, it''s common to put some form of indicator to the footnote (such as a number in square-brackets, matched to another at the reference). Just writing at the top and saying that everything you write is referencing everything at the bottom is rather glib.> Many people don''t like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing.Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I''m not going to stop encouraging them to get better at it... On 5 November 2011 21:58, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: Because you interspersed this one, it really was *much* easier to follow ;-)>>> Unless a list owner demands it, it''s a topic that will never be solved. >> >> Unless one realises that it''s not "preference" it''s "ignorance". > > Because you say so? Again, check the intensity of the google''s hitlist I sent before.No, it just *is* ignorance, whether I say so out loud or sit quietly in the wings. Lots of preferences are born out of ignorance; sure, lots of people get very heated about this one, but if you cancel the noise on all sides, top/bottom posted replies of any length cause confusion, while interspersed replies offer an opportunity of discussing like a "normal" conversation (yet may well still give rise to some confusion on occasion). Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I''ll choose the lesser.> Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization?As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails?> Honestly, I think this is a dead topic.It''s certainly kicking strongly.> I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much.But again; this is contradictory, because you''re asking people *not* to ask other people not to top post? (eek... triple-negative - never good ;-) A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? night all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 2011-11-05, at 6:18 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:> On 5 November 2011 21:54, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote: >> >>> On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>>> Actually, it doesn''t. >>> >>> What doesn''t what? >> >> See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom. It was referencing what was quoted down below. > > I''m sure you''re trying to be interestingly ironic, but you''re shooting > yourself in the foot a little. Yes, of course, it may be "preference" > to "quote" from references at the bottom; but normally in this > instance, it''s common to put some form of indicator to the footnote > (such as a number in square-brackets, matched to another at the > reference). Just writing at the top and saying that everything you > write is referencing everything at the bottom is rather glib.Well, you''re just wrong then. I''m not trying to be ironic at all. I actually don''t like hipsters. And I disagree. I''m responding to what I am quoting. Hopefully what''s quotes is what the current reply is commenting about. That''s why one would quote something, as a reference. If not, why would it be quoted at all?>> Many people don''t like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing. > > Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I''m not > going to stop encouraging them to get better at it…Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them.> On 5 November 2011 21:58, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Because you interspersed this one, it really was *much* easier to follow ;-)For you. Some people don''t find it easier. :-P>>>> Unless a list owner demands it, it''s a topic that will never be solved. >>> >>> Unless one realises that it''s not "preference" it''s "ignorance". >> >> Because you say so? Again, check the intensity of the google''s hitlist I sent before. > > No, it just *is* ignorance, whether I say so out loud or sit quietly > in the wings. Lots of preferences are born out of ignorance; sure, > lots of people get very heated about this one, but if you cancel the > noise on all sides, top/bottom posted replies of any length cause > confusion, while interspersed replies offer an opportunity of > discussing like a "normal" conversation (yet may well still give rise > to some confusion on occasion).See, it isn''t about you. It''s not ignorance because you say so. There''s plenty of evidence that people argue about this well before you. And while I can appreciate your presentation of logic, it isn''t the only way out there, and those alternatives are indeed brought up in other people''s logic.> Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I''ll choose the lesser.For your expectations, sure. I don''t mind it. THAT is my point.>> Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization? > > As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails?So now it''s a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email?>> Honestly, I think this is a dead topic. > > It''s certainly kicking strongly.It''s dead because everybody expects everybody else to wrap around their own needs.>> I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much. > > But again; this is contradictory, because you''re asking people *not* > to ask other people not to top post? (eek... triple-negative - never > good ;-)No, I''m saying don''t bitch when people do things their way. Please, with all the ways this thread has been quoted and formatted, you still haven''t read what I have put. I''m continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don''t get it. Would you like a different font? Want me to explain it yet again? If anything, you''re demonstrating that in any way shape or form, you still won''t get it, and formatting has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a thread or a point. What would be ultimately respectful to people is if they read the posts instead of expecting others to format properly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 5 November 2011 22:47, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:>>> Many people don''t like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing. >> >> Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I''m not >> going to stop encouraging them to get better at it… > > Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them.I don''t understand what you''re saying here.> See, it isn''t about you. It''s not ignorance because you say so.>> Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I''ll choose the lesser. > > For your expectations, sure. I don''t mind it. THAT is my point.I''m talking about the confusion upon *all* readers totalled together - not just the confusion of an individual reader. When lots of people read and reply with top or bottom posted email, there''s lots of confusion. When another lot read and reply with interleaving, there''s generally less confusion.>>> Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization? >> >> As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails? > > So now it''s a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email?I''m suggesting that the developers add the functionality of thread organisation to attempt to compensate for the situation that has resulted from people not being able to compose messages nicely. I''m not implying that it''s the developers'' *fault* there''s top-posting (unless they''re the developers of Outlook ;-)> I''m saying don''t bitch when people do things their way... I''m continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don''t get it.And you don''t seem to have "got it" either. No-one has "bitched". It was suggested to a poster not to top-post, because the people (or at least a large portion of them) that are attempting to help would find it easier to help if their messages were composed differently. So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their "preference", they''re being deliberately ignorant of the simple requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little courtesy goes a long way.> Would you like a different font? Want me to explain it yet again?Now, now. It''s all been very civil so far. If you want to veer toward snide, I''ll abstain.> What would be ultimately respectful to people is if they read the posts instead of expecting others to format properly.So you agree... they''re not formatting "properly" ATM? ;-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
I don''t understand what you''re saying here. I''m talking about the confusion upon *all* readers totalled together - not just the confusion of an individual reader. When lots of people read and reply with top or bottom posted email, there''s lots of confusion. When another lot read and reply with interleaving, there''s generally less confusion. I''m suggesting that the developers add the functionality of thread organisation to attempt to compensate for the situation that has resulted from people not being able to compose messages nicely. I''m not implying that it''s the developers'' *fault* there''s top-posting (unless they''re the developers of Outlook ;-)And you don''t seem to have "got it" either. No-one has "bitched". It was suggested to a poster not to top-post, because the people (or at least a large portion of them) that are attempting to help would find it easier to help if their messages were composed differently. So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their "preference", they''re being deliberately ignorant of the simple requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little courtesy goes a long way. Now, now. It''s all been very civil so far. If you want to veer toward snide, I''ll abstain. So you agree... they''re not formatting "properly" ATM? ;-) (re-posted as a top-post as an experiment on the clarity of the format...) On 5 November 2011 22:47, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On 2011-11-05, at 6:18 PM, Michael Pavling wrote: > >> On 5 November 2011 21:54, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote: >>> >>>> On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>>>> Actually, it doesn''t. >>>> >>>> What doesn''t what? >>> >>> See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom. It was referencing what was quoted down below. >> >> I''m sure you''re trying to be interestingly ironic, but you''re shooting >> yourself in the foot a little. Yes, of course, it may be "preference" >> to "quote" from references at the bottom; but normally in this >> instance, it''s common to put some form of indicator to the footnote >> (such as a number in square-brackets, matched to another at the >> reference). Just writing at the top and saying that everything you >> write is referencing everything at the bottom is rather glib. > > Well, you''re just wrong then. I''m not trying to be ironic at all. I actually don''t like hipsters. > > And I disagree. I''m responding to what I am quoting. Hopefully what''s quotes is what the current reply is commenting about. That''s why one would quote something, as a reference. If not, why would it be quoted at all? > >>> Many people don''t like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing. >> >> Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I''m not >> going to stop encouraging them to get better at it… > > Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them. > >> On 5 November 2011 21:58, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> Because you interspersed this one, it really was *much* easier to follow ;-) > > For you. Some people don''t find it easier. :-P > >>>>> Unless a list owner demands it, it''s a topic that will never be solved. >>>> >>>> Unless one realises that it''s not "preference" it''s "ignorance". >>> >>> Because you say so? Again, check the intensity of the google''s hitlist I sent before. >> >> No, it just *is* ignorance, whether I say so out loud or sit quietly >> in the wings. Lots of preferences are born out of ignorance; sure, >> lots of people get very heated about this one, but if you cancel the >> noise on all sides, top/bottom posted replies of any length cause >> confusion, while interspersed replies offer an opportunity of >> discussing like a "normal" conversation (yet may well still give rise >> to some confusion on occasion). > > See, it isn''t about you. It''s not ignorance because you say so. There''s plenty of evidence that people argue about this well before you. And while I can appreciate your presentation of logic, it isn''t the only way out there, and those alternatives are indeed brought up in other people''s logic. > >> Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I''ll choose the lesser. > > For your expectations, sure. I don''t mind it. THAT is my point. > >>> Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization? >> >> As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails? > > So now it''s a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email? > >>> Honestly, I think this is a dead topic. >> >> It''s certainly kicking strongly. > > It''s dead because everybody expects everybody else to wrap around their own needs. > >>> I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much. >> >> But again; this is contradictory, because you''re asking people *not* >> to ask other people not to top post? (eek... triple-negative - never >> good ;-) > > No, I''m saying don''t bitch when people do things their way. Please, with all the ways this thread has been quoted and formatted, you still haven''t read what I have put. I''m continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don''t get it. Would you like a different font? Want me to explain it yet again? If anything, you''re demonstrating that in any way shape or form, you still won''t get it, and formatting has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a thread or a point. > > What would be ultimately respectful to people is if they read the posts instead of expecting others to format properly. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 2011-11-05, at 7:07 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:>>>> >>>> Many people don''t like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing. >>> >>> Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I''m not >>> going to stop encouraging them to get better at it… >> >> Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them. > > I don''t understand what you''re saying here.Three types of ways you can format a reply. - top posting - bottom posting - interspersed Having expectations of everybody else conforming to what you prefer, is going to shut down people''s participation.>> See, it isn''t about you. It''s not ignorance because you say so. > >>> Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I''ll choose the lesser. >> >> For your expectations, sure. I don''t mind it. THAT is my point. > > I''m talking about the confusion upon *all* readers totalled together - > not just the confusion of an individual reader. > When lots of people read and reply with top or bottom posted email, > there''s lots of confusion. When another lot read and reply with > interleaving, there''s generally less confusion.But that''s the situation. You can only assume that with a list where there is nothing formally posted to instruct people, and with a population in a list that''s healthy, that there are all three types of posters around. Interleaving makes sense to you. Other people say top posting makes sense. Other people say bottom posting makes sense. Arguments all around. That''s why it''s a dead topic, because there is never a winner.>>>> Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization? >>> >>> As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails? >> >> So now it''s a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email? > > I''m suggesting that the developers add the functionality of thread > organisation to attempt to compensate for the situation that has > resulted from people not being able to compose messages nicely. > I''m not implying that it''s the developers'' *fault* there''s top-posting > (unless they''re the developers of Outlook ;-)You just insist that your preference is right.>> I''m saying don''t bitch when people do things their way... I''m continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don''t get it. > > And you don''t seem to have "got it" either. No-one has "bitched". It > was suggested to a poster not to top-post, because the people (or at > least a large portion of them) that are attempting to help would find > it easier to help if their messages were composed differently.And the response is that other people prefer other ways because they find it easier. Have you considered that?> So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their > "preference", they''re being deliberately ignorant of the simple > requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little > courtesy goes a long way.…and then you continue to call them ignorant, because they don''t agree with you. And you wonder why topics never progress. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 2011-11-05, at 7:09 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:> I don''t understand what you''re saying here. > I''m talking about the confusion upon *all* readers totalled together - > not just the confusion of an individual reader. > When lots of people read and reply with top or bottom posted email, > there''s lots of confusion. When another lot read and reply with > interleaving, there''s generally less confusion. I''m suggesting that > the developers add the functionality of thread organisation to attempt > to compensate for the situation that has resulted from people not > being able to compose messages nicely. > I''m not implying that it''s the developers'' *fault* there''s top-posting > (unless they''re the developers of Outlook ;-)And you don''t seem to > have "got it" either. No-one has "bitched". It was suggested to a > poster not to top-post, because the people (or at least a large > portion of them) that are attempting to help would find it easier to > help if their messages were composed differently. > So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their > "preference", they''re being deliberately ignorant of the simple > requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little > courtesy goes a long way. > Now, now. It''s all been very civil so far. If you want to veer toward > snide, I''ll abstain. > So you agree... they''re not formatting "properly" ATM? ;-) > > (re-posted as a top-post as an experiment on the clarity of the format...) > > On 5 November 2011 22:47, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> On 2011-11-05, at 6:18 PM, Michael Pavling wrote: >> >>> On 5 November 2011 21:54, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>>>>> Actually, it doesn''t. >>>>> >>>>> What doesn''t what? >>>> >>>> See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom. It was referencing what was quoted down below. >>> >>> I''m sure you''re trying to be interestingly ironic, but you''re shooting >>> yourself in the foot a little. Yes, of course, it may be "preference" >>> to "quote" from references at the bottom; but normally in this >>> instance, it''s common to put some form of indicator to the footnote >>> (such as a number in square-brackets, matched to another at the >>> reference). Just writing at the top and saying that everything you >>> write is referencing everything at the bottom is rather glib. >> >> Well, you''re just wrong then. I''m not trying to be ironic at all. I actually don''t like hipsters. >> >> And I disagree. I''m responding to what I am quoting. Hopefully what''s quotes is what the current reply is commenting about. That''s why one would quote something, as a reference. If not, why would it be quoted at all? >> >>>> Many people don''t like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing. >>> >>> Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I''m not >>> going to stop encouraging them to get better at it… >> >> Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them. >> >>> On 5 November 2011 21:58, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>> >>> Because you interspersed this one, it really was *much* easier to follow ;-) >> >> For you. Some people don''t find it easier. :-P >> >>>>>> Unless a list owner demands it, it''s a topic that will never be solved. >>>>> >>>>> Unless one realises that it''s not "preference" it''s "ignorance". >>>> >>>> Because you say so? Again, check the intensity of the google''s hitlist I sent before. >>> >>> No, it just *is* ignorance, whether I say so out loud or sit quietly >>> in the wings. Lots of preferences are born out of ignorance; sure, >>> lots of people get very heated about this one, but if you cancel the >>> noise on all sides, top/bottom posted replies of any length cause >>> confusion, while interspersed replies offer an opportunity of >>> discussing like a "normal" conversation (yet may well still give rise >>> to some confusion on occasion). >> >> See, it isn''t about you. It''s not ignorance because you say so. There''s plenty of evidence that people argue about this well before you. And while I can appreciate your presentation of logic, it isn''t the only way out there, and those alternatives are indeed brought up in other people''s logic. >> >>> Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I''ll choose the lesser. >> >> For your expectations, sure. I don''t mind it. THAT is my point. >> >>>> Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization? >>> >>> As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails? >> >> So now it''s a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email? >> >>>> Honestly, I think this is a dead topic. >>> >>> It''s certainly kicking strongly. >> >> It''s dead because everybody expects everybody else to wrap around their own needs. >> >>>> I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much. >>> >>> But again; this is contradictory, because you''re asking people *not* >>> to ask other people not to top post? (eek... triple-negative - never >>> good ;-) >> >> No, I''m saying don''t bitch when people do things their way. Please, with all the ways this thread has been quoted and formatted, you still haven''t read what I have put. I''m continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don''t get it. Would you like a different font? Want me to explain it yet again? If anything, you''re demonstrating that in any way shape or form, you still won''t get it, and formatting has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a thread or a point. >> >> What would be ultimately respectful to people is if they read the posts instead of expecting others to format properly. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. >> To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.And a reply to demonstrate how stupid a bottom post can look. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 5 November 2011 23:24, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> And a reply to demonstrate how stupid a bottom post can look.yes... I''ve agreed with that already... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Hehe, interspersed can get rather lengthy as well. My preferences are top-posting and interspersed. I don''t mind editing a good topic. On 2011-11-05, at 7:26 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:>> And a reply to demonstrate how stupid a bottom post can look. > > yes... I''ve agreed with that already...-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 5 November 2011 23:24, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > On 2011-11-05, at 7:07 PM, Michael Pavling wrote: >>>> Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I''m not >>>> going to stop encouraging them to get better at it… >>> >>> Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them. >> >> I don''t understand what you''re saying here. > > Having expectations of everybody else conforming to what you prefer, is going to shut down people''s participation.Yes, but I specifically don''t understand how "Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them" has any relation to with me saying that I''m not going to stop helping people improve their coding where possible. Don''t worry though - it''s probably not worth the distraction (unless it was very important, in which case, please do clarify)> But that''s the situation. You can only assume that with a list where there is nothing formally posted to instruct people, and with a population in a list that''s healthy, that there are all three types of posters around.I "assume" based on reading all the threads (and I read ''em all...), and seeing the amount and quality of people who post in different ways. Most of the requests are poorly written, most of the best assistance is well written.> Interleaving makes sense to you. Other people say top posting makes sense.Yes... people say all sorts of cr@p about all sorts of stuff. But not everyone''s opinion is worth the same. Look at the quality of posts from people, and judge their "opinions" by that.> You just insist that your preference is right.urm... no. I insist that the right way is what I prefer ;-)> And the response is that other people prefer other ways because they find it easier. Have you considered that?I don''t need to consider it - no-one has ever posted a response to a reply here saying "please don''t interleave your response, it''s too easy to see what line you''re responding to". Why spend time considering something which has never happened? The only "easy" that top or bottom-posting-without-any-trimming is is easy for the sender - because it''s quick and lazy.>> So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their >> "preference", they''re being deliberately ignorant of the simple >> requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little >> courtesy goes a long way.> > …and then you continue to call them ignorant, because they don''t agree with you. And you wonder why topics never progress.I''m calling their behaviour ignorant, and I''ve said they''re demonstrating ignorance - we can certainly all behave ignorantly from time-to-time. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
It''s a good thing there''s beer in the World. On 2011-11-05, at 7:48 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:>> >> You just insist that your preference is right. > > urm... no. I insist that the right way is what I prefer ;-)-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 21:08 +0000, Colin Law wrote:> On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Actually, it doesn''t. > > What doesn''t what?---- he was actually proving the point of why top posting is a problem while trying to argue the opposite. He was answering my point which was sandwiched down below. Some people will never get it - probably because they don''t want to. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Read the thread. On 2011-11-05, at 9:27 PM, Craig White wrote:> he was actually proving the point of why top posting is a problem while > trying to argue the opposite. He was answering my point which was > sandwiched down below. > > Some people will never get it - probably because they don''t want to.Read the thread.> CraigRead the thread. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Thanks for your reply and sorry for my late response =) I''m using Typus, I know that theres a group for typus but I think that this problem can happen everywhere> You are still being too vague about your requirement, for me anyway. > Can you write the validation test as pseudo code, being absolutely > clear about each reference there? Ignore everything about the meaning > of the database fields and just write the validation requirement in > terms of data in the database and the new data about to be saved, > referencing just database fields. >I have a view of evaluations EVALUATIONS Name View questions Add question Math view add (edit) Science view add (edit) EVALUATION : Math QUESTIONS Number View alternatives Add alt. 1 view add (edit) 2 view add (edit) 3 view add (edit) with validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id I made that there''s only one question number "1" on each evaluation the only problem that I have (as I mentioned before) is that, when I edit the second question (# 2) and I change its content, it doesn''t let me to do it, because they found that the number (# 2) has been already taken The other problem is what happens if I want to edit the second question (# 2) and I change the number to (# 3) with that validation it let me do that, but what if I edit the second question (#2) and I put (#1).... there will be two questions with the same number (#1) I was searching for a validation for it, I''ve been reading the validation guide and found section 15 about Proc.new.... it could help but I don''t understand it well (I''m really new with rails)> JavierQQ, try this: > > validates :qnumber, :uniqueness => { :scope => :evaluation_id, > :message => "must be unique within each evaluation" } > > in the model, and let us know what happens. Don''t worry about what > controller it''s going through to get there.s>> -DaveIt works! ... well as far as I tested :), thanks a lot I''ve been reading the messages about top-posting and I''m really really sorry about any trouble I could have caused Thanks a lot Colin for keep on trying to help me, I''ll follow your advice about how to post something -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 6 November 2011 01:27, Craig White <craigwhite-BQ75lA0ptkhBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 21:08 +0000, Colin Law wrote: >> On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich <beerich-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> > Actually, it doesn''t. >> >> What doesn''t what? > ---- > he was actually proving the point of why top posting is a problem while > trying to argue the opposite. He was answering my point which was > sandwiched down below.I think perhaps I was being too subtle :) I will find a larger sledgehammer next time. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
I reiterate: if you change the subject, change the Subject! In case my subtlety is lost on you, lemme ''splain: if you start writing about something other than what the conversation was originally about, take a few seconds to change the Subject line of the message. (Or if you''re writing directly on a web forum, it may be called the Title, or Re, or something else, but still you probably understand what I mean.) Because certain people didn''t do that (even though *I did* and thereby created a perfectly good thread in which to sidetrack the nonsense), we''ve now got all this repetitive dead-horse-beating about top/bottom/interspersed posting, polluting the thread in which JavierQQ was actually trying to get some help, and *some* of us were actually trying to help him. Making him, and the rest of us, wade through it (if at this point anybody but the post-order zealots is still reading this), is even MORE anti-productive, than whatever posting-placement you might think is most wrong. Think of it like a poorly named variable, method, or class. We see the subject line (go take a moment to look at it!), and expect it to be something about RoR validations, models, and controller defs, whatever those are. But instead we find the same old crap people have been arguing about for literally decades, about top posting. Like if Rails gives you a stack trace that says that you have an error in your method Category::rename_to_standard, and you find it has nothing to do with categories, naming, or standards, but does something utterly unrelated like maybe calculating a ballistic trajectory (and the whole application had nothing to do with ballistics), as part of an Easter-egg game that some overly clever but underly supervised bored programmer decided to stick into some gem you''re using. Yes I know that by posting this message I am contributing to said noise -- but as my high school calculus teacher said, sometime you''ve got to make something uglier before you can make it pretty. NOW GET IT THE FSCK OUT OF HERE! :-P -Dave -- LOOKING FOR WORK! What: Ruby (on/off Rails), Python, other modern languages. Where: Northern Virginia, Washington DC (near Orange Line), and remote work. See: davearonson.com (main) * codosaur.us (code) * dare2xl.com (excellence). Specialization is for insects. (Heinlein) - Have Pun, Will Babble! (Aronson) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 6 November 2011 16:24, Dave Aronson <googlegroups2dave-BRiZGj7G2yRXqviUI+FSNg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I reiterate: if you change the subject, change the Subject!+1 Since you have not quoted anyone we don''t know who you are referring to, but I assume it is BeeRich since it was he that changed the subject. Though I can''t see where you iterated this in the first place in order to re-iterate it now. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 6 November 2011 04:10, JavierQQ <jquarites-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I''ve been reading the messages about top-posting and I''m really really > sorry about any trouble I could have causedDon''t worry about it, it was my fault for asking you. Some people get very excited about this sort of thing.> Thanks a lot Colin for keep on trying to help me, I''ll follow your > advice about how to post somethingI think Dave Aronson''s suggestions were more use than mine :) Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.