search for: hmt

For a while, I''ve been getting that HMT is replacing HABTM. It appears that HMT can do all of what HABTM can do and more. The question is: Should I stop using HABTM? Let''s take a simple case: A case has many categories For a given category, there are certain valid statuses Category has_and_belongs_to_many :statuses Status has...

Hi, I''ve been breaking my head over this thing with no success. Here is my table layout - class User < AR has_many :memberships has_many :groups, :through => :memberships ... class Group < AR has_many :memberships has_many :users, :through => :memberships ... class Membership < AR belongs_to :user, :class_name => "User", :foreign_key =>

So having just learned how to do has_many :through as opposed to HABTM, and then, being concerned that I wouldn''t get it to work, I started thinking about these two approaches. It seems to me that the _only_ problem that the HM:T (has_many :through) approach solves that HABTM doesn''t is the issue of the potential collision of id columns between your join table and one of

Hello, I have a has_and_belongs_to_many relationship that I''ve realized I need to add additional attributes to. So I''m converting it to a has_many :through (HMT) relationship. This is the first time I''ve used an HMT, and it seems like I''m using too much code. I couldn''t figure out how to get the join model objects to update automatically as a result of updating the primary object, so I''ve ended up doing individual saves/...

Hello, I''m trying to implement something like the following scenario. I''ve got "Alloys" (blends of metals), "Metals" and "Percentages" I want to implement this using a join model, not using a has_and_belongs_to_many relationship. (If i''m wrong about that, let me know). Basically, i have the following tables: Metals id name Alloys

...many :through type relationships. One example, pairing users with categories via subscriptions, where each user can be the "owner" of a category, has given me particular trouble when I try to update a user''s category subscriptions. **Has anyone figured out how to manipulate HMT relationship with checkboxes?** =begin code ## Here''s what my models look like: ## user.rb has_many :subscriptions has_many :cats, :through => :subscriptions ## cat.rb has_many :subscriptions has_many :users, :through => :subscriptions ## subscription.rb belongs_to :user bel...

...queued_spin_unlock static inline queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock) { ??????? if (!is_shared_processor()) ??????????????? smp_store_release(&lock->locked, 0); ??????? else ??????????????? __pv_queued_spin_unlock(lock); } Otherwise, pv_kick() will never be called. Maybe PowerPC HMT is different that the shared cpus can still process instruction, though slower, that cpu kicking like what was done in kvm is not really necessary. If that is the case, I think we should document that. Cheers, Longman

I''m currently try to push my limits a little bit with some of my unit testing -- trying to avoid saving ActiveRecord objects to the database and take advantage of mock/stub objects. How far should I expect to get in this direction? From what I can tell, ActiveRecord seems to fight me when it comes to associations. In other words, many associations seem to require database queries.

...ago choonkeat alerted the list that patch #5216 actually makes habtm resilient against the existence of extra attributes messing up the normal ops of habtm. However habtm is reaching the end of its product lifecycle (i.e. don''t use it anymore, use has_many :through, affectionately known as hmt) and this patch might not be needed anymore. But Rick Olson thnks this patch might in fact help people migrate ot hmt. choonkeat still feels hte patch should be applied to make habtm behave correctly in spite of an extra column being present. The jury is still out on this one. [ thread: http://www...

Given the following class Programmer < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :assignments has_many :projects, :through => :assignments end if I call Programmer#projects.clear, it will delete_all the joining assignments; however, I have a situation where I''d like the assignments to get destroyed instead so that their after_destroy callbacks get called. It would be simple to

I just took my HABTM and turned it into a :through since my join table has another "non-joiny" attribute. I went from this: has_many_and_belongs_to :jobs, :join_table => ''tablename'', :foreign_key => ''x'', :association_foreign_key => ''y'' to this: has_many :jobs, :through =>

Hi, Posting here since issue tracking isn''t the best place to discuss. I can understand habtm is moving towards deprecating support for extra attributes in join_table, and to use :through for those cases instead. To clarify, patch<http://dev.rubyonrails.org/attachment/ticket/5216/habtm_join_table_test.patch1.diff>for #5216 <http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/5216>

I am trying to implement HMT for the first time and having a ton of trouble. I would like to be able to have the user check a checkbox and fill some extra fields for data input. I have tried so many iterations borrowed from different places I found on the web, none seem to work quite right. Essentially I have two models: ...

All, I''ve heard recently about has_many :through as a necessary alternative to HABTM (when the join table has it''s own id column, say, in a legacy schema). However, is the prevailing Rails wisdom now that one should use has_many :through in _all_ cases? If so, why? Thanks, Wes -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

...ums, :through => :topics, :uniq => true has_many :forums, :through => :comments, :uniq => true has_many :forums, :through => :replies, :uniq => true end I dont think so... Only the Topic model is directly associated with the Forum. Is there a clean way to do a HMT association on multiple, nested associations like this? -- 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 t...

Hello, I''m trying to insert into my migrate but when I try on rails console this error shows: 1.9.3-p0 :001 > group = Group.new => #<Group id: nil, name: nil, description: nil, created_at: nil, updated_at: nil> 1.9.3-p0 :002 > group.name = "Group Name" => "Group Name" 1.9.3-p0 :003 > group.description = "Description" =>

I have made 3 tables +------------+ +----------------+ +------------+ |people | |people_campaigns| |campaigns | +------------+ +----------------+ +------------+ |id :int | <----> |people_id :int | /-> |id :int | |name :string| |campaign_id :int| <-/ |name :string| |etc ... | |exported :int |

...10 boards come with the resistors fitted so that the card detects for channels 0 and 1 are the same. @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ config MACH_NCP select S3C_DEV_HSMMC1 select S3C_DEV_I2C1 help - Machine support for the Samsung NCP + Machine support for the Samsung NCP config MACH_HMT bool "Airgoo HMT" diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/Kconfig b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/Kconfig index 301e572651c0..99ae92fa452a 100644 --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/Kconfig @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ config S3C_PM_DEBUG_LED_SMDK bool "SMDK LED suspe...

v2 is updated to account for feedback from Will, Peter, and Waiman (thank you), and trims off a couple of RFC and unrelated patches. Thanks, Nick Nicholas Piggin (6): powerpc/powernv: must include hvcall.h to get PAPR defines powerpc/pseries: move some PAPR paravirt functions to their own file powerpc: move spinlock implementation to simple_spinlock powerpc/64s: implement queued

Hi. To begin with, I have a freshly built RedHat Linux 8.0 box running samba 2.2.8a. The kernel version is 2.4.18-14. I downloaded and compiled samba from source. I am using LPRng-3.8.9-6 as my printing system. The attached printer is a Lexmark Z22 printer and it is attached to the parralel port. Problem: For the life of me, I can't get NT type clients, NT4, 2K and XP to print to samba.