similar to: Associations and << only setting foreign key not instance

Perhaps this is intentional, but it seems unlikely: class Person < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :school end p = Person.find(:first) p.school # nil p.school_id = School.find_by_name(''High School'').id p.school.name # High School p.school_id = School.find_by_name(''Primary School'').id p.school.name # High School <= Shouldn''t this be Primary

I''ve encountered what seems like an odd omission in the behaviour of belongs_to associations: if you assign to the foreign key attribute, it doesn''t update the associated object (or mark a previously loaded one as stale) until you explicitly save or reload it. Let''s say we have a Company model, which belongs_to :city : >> torchbox =

I have a 1 to 1 relationship using a similar example as below (has_one, belongs_to) but when I do the save, the foreign key of the child object is not set to the id of the parent object in the relation ship any ideas? cheers dion --------------------------------- class Person < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :address validates_presence_of :email --------------------------------- end

On 8/10/06, Dion Hewson <dionhewson@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have a 1 to 1 relationship using a similar example as below (has_one, belongs_to) > > but when I do the save, the foreign key of the child object is not set to the id of the parent object in the relation ship > > > any ideas? > > cheers > > dion > > --------------------------------- > >

I'm investigating "improving" the TCO facilities in LLVM to provide for "hard" tail calls. Specifically, this would involve extending the existing implementation to discard the stack frame for the caller before executing the callee. I would then like to extend this further by performing hard tail calls on _all_ returning calls that no longer require the stack frame. A

Can someone please confirm or correct the following statements? If I have the following tables create table as (id int, [...], b_id int); create table bs (id int, [...], a_id int); create table as_bs (a_id int, b_id int); and the associations woould be defined like this class A << ... habtm :bs belongs_to :b end so my Model A has a habtm collection of Bs *plus* a direct

I am applying Rails to an existing schema and not sure how much the existing developers will let me go in and rename things. So I need to discover the limits of what I can change with Rails. I''ve found set_table_name and set_primary_key, which have been very useful. If I have a "foo has_one :bar" relationship, but then in the bar table my column is named "fooid"

Hi I?m trying to bring across all related data. My table clients has a foreign key field that stores the id of an organization How can I grab the details of the organization to use in the clients show.rhtml file? Thanks Scott -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

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 =>

I''m willing to write a patch for this issue: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/8893 But want to confirm that the new behavior makes sense before I make the effort. Essentially if you have an unsaved parent and child, and the parent''s association to the child has an inverse_of declared on it. When the parent gets saved, it updates the foreign key on the child, and this

I have tried to use eager association with pagination, but the :include option is not supported: Here''s the one-line pagination call without :include @link_pages, @links = paginate :link, :per_page => 10, :order_by => sort_clause and here the work around, using the "classic" method # @link_pages = Paginator.new self, Link.count, 10,

Hello, I have the following structure: model foo has_many :bars:, :dependent => true end model bar belongs_to :foo end ----------------- I''m doing the following to insert the Foo record and it''s dependent Bar record: f = Foo.create(...) This successfully creates and stores f away in the table. Now, b = Bar.new(params[...]) f.bars << b

ActiveRecord supports composed_of for value objects which is fantastic but one thing that it doesn''t seem to support (or at least I am unable to find any documentation for) validation of the value objects. For example, given the following: class Message < ActiveRecord::Base composed_of :sender, :class_name => ''EmailAddress'' composed_of :recipient,

How do I validate that a model object''s attribute is a valid foreign key? The problem is, I can''t check if the attribute is a valid foreign key if the attribute doesn''t even exist. For example, every employee must be in a department. In the following code, if an employee''s department_id is not present then Department.find_by_id(department_id) might cause

Hello, I have a situation where the foreign key into a table doesn''t correspond to that table''s primary key: my_table ------------- id (pk) name ... other_table -------------- id (pk) my_table_name (fk references my_table(name)) ... I want to be able to say something like: class OtherTable < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :my_table, :foreign_key => { :my_table_name

Hi all I use the plugin which supports foreign keys with migrations: http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Foreign+Key+Schema+Dumper+Plugin/versions/12 I have created the following migration file: class AddArtistsTable < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :artists, :force => true do |t| t.column :name, :string, :limit => 100 t.column :artist_type_id,

Hi all I''m still waiting on my Agile Rails book to arrive - in the meantime ... As an exercise I''m making a Help Desk application. If I have a Problems table with two foreign keys to a People table, how do I set up my models, problems_controller list method, and then simply display say my problem submitter person? Here is what I have so far: Problems table with columns: id

I use Oracle and i really want to use migrations, but there seems to be no way to setup foreign key constraints. Is this true? If it is then doesn''t that make migrations useles with Oracle? Thanks Chris -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I''ve noticed that when testing is finished that at some point Rails has removed the foreign key constraints from my test database. Does anyone know where this foreign key constraint deletion occurs in the source code. I''d like to turn it off. Thanks, Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

In a model declaration I can specify the name of the primary key column with set_primary_key "CUSTOMER_NUMBER" How can I set the name of a foreign key column that does not conform to the RoR naming convention. Does the following work? set_foreign_key "CUSTOMER_NUMBER" If not, how can I specify the name of the foreign key column? Thanks.