similar to: [Patch][Issue #5097] attributeless find_or_create/find_or_initialize

Today I just spent 3 hours (and before a demo!) trying to figure out why my polymorphic association fields were breaking. Turns out someone else put in a patch for this 6 months ago. I''m not sure if its the same solution I''d use... I''d rather find_or_create attempt to use AssociationProxy#build if its available and only Base#new if we''re not on a proxy.

I am attempting to use find_or_create on a foreign table with a has_and_belongs_to_many relationship with my current table. I am doing the following: term = school.terms.find_or_create_by_code("FALL06") the queries in the log show the expected SELECT statement to query if there is a join table record between the school and term with code "FALL06": SELECT * FROM term INNER

Hi, I''m using the new Nested Attributes to edit my models. It''s a complicated relationship between 5 different models which are subclassed from a ''Metadata'' model. They all have has_and_belongs_to_many relationships with the model I am trying to edit. Unfortunately when I add a new nested attribute, it creates a new row in the database. I need it to check up

Is there any ActiveRecord''s dynamic finder that can allow me to find first association or create it if it doesn''t exist. Something like this (not this code is conceptual - it does not work!): Comment.posts.find_or_create(:first) -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails:

Rails 3.1.3 I have tables, Video and Script having association, Video 1 --- n Script So, every Script needs the parent id, in this case, video_id. If I simply create a new Script instance, the view renders as follows. <%= render :partial => "new_script", :locals => { :script => Script.new(:video_id => @video.id)} %> which works fine. Now I would like to

I just ran across a weird glitch (IMHO) in find_or_create. The arguments passed to it are *not* added to the conditions for the ''first'' part. This is odd, given that it''s intended to replace find_or_create_by_* methods, which *did* use the specified values as conditions. I''m unsure on whether this behavior is entirely undesirable, but it''s definitely

Hi all, I recently encountered a problem in my FriendlyId plugin where a belongs_to association unexpectedly failed to load because a user was using state_machine and a default scope to make only "active" records return by default. It seems logical to allow associations to be specifed as "unscoped" in order to bypass any default scopes. Conceptually I see this as similar to

How do I check if an entry exists before saving? Someone one told me to use the method find_or_create (or something like that) but it didn''t work because I think the version of rails that we have is not the most recent. I need a way to check if an id exists in the db before saving. Any suggestions? Thank you -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hi All, I have a one to many relationship between images and gifts (one image can be assigned to multiple gifts): class ProductImage < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :gifts ... class Gift < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :product_image ... I''m trying to associate an image with a gift, and for the life of me ActiveRecord will not associate them. Here is some test code and the

I find myself writing the following frequently: r = MyActiveRecord.where(:attr1 => cond1, :attr2 => cond2, ...) r.exists? ? r.first : r.create ... which has the effect of returning an instance of MyActiveRecord if all the conditions are met, or creating one if it doesn''t. A variant of this: c = MyActiveRecord.new(:attr1 => val1, :attr2 => val2, ...) r =

>>> I'd like to emphasise in the latter one: "This option also relaxes the precision of >>> commonly used math functions." >> >> Isn't this the "libm" flag that is proposed in this thread? > > I don't know. I didn't see any definition of it. > > In my case I'm talking about allowing the use of lower precision but

Hi list, how are ya? So, my current project is just begging for the ability to have parameterized associations in my ActiveRecord classes. Basically I need something that is a cross between named scopes and standard associations (has_many specifically). I''m wondering if such a thing exists or, if not, if anyone else has an elegant, equivalent solution? Example: class Sprocket <

the scenario... three tables, thusly: widgets ------- id widget_color_id widget_style_id widget_colors ------------- id color widget_style ------------ id style the data: widgets ------- 1 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 widget_colors ------------- 1 blue 2 red 3 green widget_styles ------------- 1 smooth 2 round 3 broken so, putting the associations together, we have in widgets: 1 red smooth 2 blue

hi everyone, I''ve this code in my Report model: has_many :report_reasons, :validate => true has_many :reasons, :through => :report_reasons #, :uniq => true # :accessible => true def reason_attributes=(reason_attributes) reasons.clear reason_attributes.uniq.each do |reason| reasons << Reason.find_or_create_by_content(reason) end end

The build failed. CHANGES ------- Revision 8896 committed by bitsweat on 2008-02-19 02:56:05 Don''t assume all records from nested include are of same class. Closes #11154 [acechase] M /trunk/activerecord/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb A /trunk/activerecord/test/cases/associations/eager_load_nested_include_test.rb TEST FAILURES AND ERRORS ----------------------- Name:

I''d be quite interested in a feature merging scopes with OR - currently the default way is AND. The feature seems to have been requested/reported here: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/5545 A pull request was sent, but it needs some work. I wrote a quick attempt too here: https://gist.github.com/3312792 It uses the syntax: Jobship.includes(:job).or(Jobship.accepted,

> It might be clearer, instead of using 'libm', to use something like 'trans' (for transcendental functions). That does seem clearer. ‘trans’ is definitely good with me. -Warren From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 5:13 PM To: Ristow, Warren; Bruce Hoult Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Trouble when suppressing a

"bitsweat" has given AR/SQLServer some love, but it''s still unhappy... http://dev.rubyonrails.org/changeset/6912 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r6912 | bitsweat | 2007-05-31 10:15:56 -0700 (Thu, 31 May 2007) | 1 line Fix an edge case with find with a list of ids, limit, and offset. Closes #8437.

Hello all, I still have a patch for #3438 (eager loading doesn''t respect association orders); it passes all unit tests, and has additional unit tests with full coverage. The patch is attached. == The Bug == Author.find(1).posts != Author.find(1, :include => [:posts]).posts if Author has_many :posts, :order => anything. This means that either one must avoid eager loading or

This feels more like a question to ask the core list, forgive me if I trespass. I''ve been trying to help one of my cow orkers get through a sticky problem. He''s got a fairly complex nested form to update a model and its children. He''s started adding some validations, and we''ve encountered a number of issues: First he had a validation on one of the child