similar to: Help with acts as paranoid

Hi... Isn''t there a proper way or hack/workaround for the following? * For the example with unfortunate disabilities.. look below,,, Usage of has_* (associationmethods) do {def with_deleted AccociatedModel#with_scope} {Paranoid''s#find_with_deleted}... The has_one associations give me a nil object when invoking it with Model.association_OBJECT.with_deleted. Has_many does like

Hi, I''ve run into two small problems with acts_as_paranoid and wondered if anyone else has experienced them as well (and if yes, if they have any solutions). 1. When using has_many :through, AAP doesn''t seem to take into account the fact that your join model might also be paranoid. My solution to this at the moment is to add an explicit conditions clause to the has_many

I have a real problem with the acts_as_paranoid plugin. The aliasing of find and so the nested scope does not seem to work at all, when combining it with similar plugins. The description: I made a copy of ''acts_as_paranoid'' in the plugin directory, renamed it to ''acts_as_very_new''(just a nonsense plugin for testing), and simplified the code (original code

Hi, guys I have a puzzle about default_scope. Suppose I have two model: class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :blogs default_scope where(deleted_at: nil) end class Blog < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user end I want to produce sqlselect blogs.* from blogs inner join users on users.id = blogs.user_id and users.deleted_at is null And the code Blog.joins(:user), which I think

Will the find from acts_as_paranoid filter down to an :include? For instance class parent acts_as_paranoid has_many: children end and class child acts_as_paranoid belongs_to :parent end Then if you Parent.find(:all, :include => children) you will get all the children if they are deleted or not. I guess the find that filters out the deleted_at is null does not filter down to the includes

Hi, I had created a new environment and tried to start the webrick server for that environment but it is giving an error:- E:/demo/vendor/rails/railties/lib/commands/servers/ webrick.rb:11: warning: already initialized constant OPTIONS E:/demo/vendor/rails/activesupport/lib/active_suppo rt/dependencies.rb:249:in `load_missing_constant'': Expected E:/Demo

I have TableA with name, description, start time displayed on one page. TableB has name, comment, file path and is displayed on another page. I''m using the SortHelper2 helper to help me sort the columns of these tables, however I''m experiencing a problem whereby if I sort TableA by description and then go ahead and view TableB I get an error message saying SQL Command Failed,

I''ve got a problem in that users are deleting a paranoid model through the application, including dependents. Some of these dependents are paranoid too, but not the attachments. (I''m using DB file storage.) I need to be able to un-delete these things and I''m now wondering if acts_as_paranoid will work with models that use attachment_fu? If so, in what model to I add the

Was looking to work on a small addition (to has_many) which will be useful to me and others alike. A few technical details about the addition: Basically wanting to have something like, has_many :subscribers, through: :subscriptions, *source_scope:* :deleted We currently have to do this in our code as, has_many :subscribers, through: :subscriptions, conditions:

Hello, Can i turn of dependencies so that a destroy on one table will not automatically destroy data in the child table? Thanks -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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

need some help on ransack filtering. I have model Project, which has many tags through acts_as_taggable gem. Project.rb: class Project < ActiveRecord::Base include PublicActivity::Common belongs_to :customer belongs_to :category has_many :attachments, :as => :attachable has_many :reports, :dependent => :destroy has_many :messages, :dependent

As far as I can tell, the counter_cache option on a belongs_to model doesn''t actually save anything in the database. For example, I have the following models: class Parent < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :children, :conditions => "deleted_at IS NULL" end class Child < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :parent, :counter_cache => true end With the following

I have a legacy db with the following simplified structure: Table-A: type_key, code_key, name, ... # PKs are type_key and code_key, there is no id col and I cannot alter this db Table-B: # each row has only the code as a foreign_key, the type_key is hard-coded to "FOOKEY" an_id, code, ... Models: class TableB < AR::Base set_table_name ''table_b''

Hello everyone, just wondering if anyone can help me with a migrations question here. Using: rails 2.0.2 ruby 1.8.6 (2007-09-24 patchlevel 111) [i386-mswin] mysql 5.0.45 Platform: windows xp The problem: ---------- I created a migration that is designed to add a column named "deleted_at" (timestamp) and then remove a column named "is_deleted" (boolean). The idea is to

Package: logcheck Version: 1.2.23 Severity: normal Hello, I have: # /bin/cat ignore.d.server/cron ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ crontab\[[0-9]+\]: \([[:alnum:]-]+\) LIST \([[:alnum:]-]+\)$ ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ crontab\[[0-9]+\]: \([[:alnum:]-]+\) REPLACE \([[:alnum:]-]+\)$ and: # /bin/cat ignore.d.paranoid/cron ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+

Hi All, I have problem with inserting new record into the database. I have a form has 4 fields, and two fields will be inserted into tableA, and other fields will be inserts into tableB. These two tables has relationship tableA(One) and tableB (Many) ...so how could I do that? Socheat Yi Web Programmer/Software Developer Screened Images Multimedia (SIM) *If You Can Imagine It...We Can

I need to compare a column in TableA to a column in TableB and then select 3 columns from TableA for all the records in TableA that don''t exist in TableB. TableA and TableB are different but do have one field in common that i am comparing. The tables are not related in anyway. right now I have a find_by_sql query located in a model that looks like this: def self.absent_charges

Hi All, I want to know thoughts on if I am being to paranoid/security conscious. CentOS 5.6, Apache, MySQL, running an Firewall in front of everything and obviously the built-in firewall on the box. I have ssh on a different port and starting to use Keys instead of password authentication. I host an intensive website and I am getting about 150 unique visitors per day. What I am seeing is

Using the acts_as_paranoid plugin with rails 1.1.4 (model also uses acts_as_threaded and acts_as_taggable) and getting some unexplainable behavior. The following tests: assert_equal Conv.count, num assert_equal Conv.count_with_deleted, CONVS_TOTAL Produce the following SQL: SQL (0.000000) SELECT count(*) AS count_all FROM convs WHERE (( convs.deleted_at IS NULL OR convs.deleted_at

Dear R experts, I've realized that it might not be possible to define a negative SELCET statement in a SQL call so now I'm looking for the smoothest way to generate a list of what I would like from my large database by first pulling all the names with a query like this "SELECT top 1 * FROM your_table" (thank you Bart Joosen for the idea) and then subtract the variables I am not