Rails - Oct 2013 - Strange behaviour with ActiveRecord has_many collections, Rails 4 compared to Rails 3

Hi All,

I have been told to post discussion based topic on here instead of the 
GitHub Issues.

I thought this ''could'' be a bug, but just need some
clarification really.
The issue I posted is here <https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/12597>, 
does anyone have any thoughts?

Again: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/12597

Thanks a lot.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/91c5d7e3-ab38-45be-916a-89b6ff9de579%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

On Monday, October 21, 2013 11:28:22 AM UTC+1, Neil Williams
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have been told to post discussion based topic on here instead of the 
> GitHub Issues.
>
> I thought this ''could'' be a bug, but just need some
clarification really.
> The issue I posted is here
<https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/12597>,
> does anyone have any thoughts?
>
> Again: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/12597
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
To be honest it feels to me like what you were using just happened to work 
by accident, because by default method_missing on the association sets up a 
scope and calls the method on the class. If this was indeed accidental 
behaviour then the change could well be the side effect of another change. 
Using new in this way isn''t something I''ve come across in
quite a few years
of using rails.

Fred

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/3f7c34b5-4bb6-4ce9-9f61-8a87e4238d46%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your reply.

"Using new in this way isn''t something I''ve come across
in quite a few
years of using rails."
How would you initialise a new Task object given you have the @story 
instance available to you?

@task = Task.new(:story_id => @story.id)    ?

If the above, I really don''t see the point of the new and build methods
for
a has_many association...

For a has_one association, I would be able to do:
@task = @story.build_task

So it makes no sense, that @task = @story.tasks.build doesn''t do the
same
thing... As ''build'' seems to just be an alias of
''new''.

Thanks.


On Monday, 21 October 2013 13:23:54 UTC+1, Frederick Cheung
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 11:28:22 AM UTC+1, Neil Williams wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have been told to post discussion based topic on here instead of the 
>> GitHub Issues.
>>
>> I thought this ''could'' be a bug, but just need some
clarification really.
>> The issue I posted is here
<https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/12597>,
>> does anyone have any thoughts?
>>
>> Again: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/12597
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>
> To be honest it feels to me like what you were using just happened to work 
> by accident, because by default method_missing on the association sets up a
> scope and calls the method on the class. If this was indeed accidental 
> behaviour then the change could well be the side effect of another change. 
> Using new in this way isn''t something I''ve come across in
quite a few years
> of using rails.
>
> Fred
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/a2da6d12-383d-48d4-bf41-3306ce2c7e5e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:37:22 PM UTC+1, Neil Williams
wrote:
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> "Using new in this way isn''t something I''ve come
across in quite a few
> years of using rails."
> How would you initialise a new Task object given you have the @story 
> instance available to you?
>
>
I''ve always done @story.tasks.build(...)

The fact that this adds the built instance to the in memory collection has 
never been a problem for me
 
Fred

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/714198ae-6b69-4595-a29c-e9862604a516%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Hi Fred,

Thanks for this.

yes I can understand why it has never been a problem. It won''t be too
much
of a problem for us either, as the collection variable e.g. @tasks, would 
normally be filtered with .where() or be ordered with .order(), therefore, 
they would be different instances. But I logged it as a bug, because it 
just doesn''t seem right.

I can''t think of any reason why one would want the built instance added
to
the in memory collection...

Anyway, I think I''ve been a bit cheeky on the Github issue, not sure if
I''m
going to get another response!

Thanks for your reply though.

On Tuesday, 22 October 2013 16:26:15 UTC+1, Frederick Cheung
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:37:22 PM UTC+1, Neil Williams wrote:
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> "Using new in this way isn''t something I''ve come
across in quite a few
>> years of using rails."
>> How would you initialise a new Task object given you have the @story 
>> instance available to you?
>>
>>
> I''ve always done @story.tasks.build(...)
>
> The fact that this adds the built instance to the in memory collection has 
> never been a problem for me
>  
> Fred
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/3003a205-8b6d-493e-a7d5-3a894a17636e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.