similar to: converting from HABTM to has_many :through

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_and_belongs_to_many :categories Question: Is

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

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/.

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: ''practice'' and ''system'' where a

Just when I started getting the hang of has_and_belongs_to_many relationships, I realize that I should probably convert several of my app''s joins to has_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

I have two models that have a habtm relationship and it only seems to be working in one direction. The two models are "recipe" and "msn_lifestyles_feed" with a join table called "msn_lifestyles_feeds_recipes" the tables for msn_lifestyles_feed and msn_lifestyles_feeds_recipes are in the same database and the recipe table is in a completely different database. When

I have two models Role and Task ..and a join table/model RoleTask Now both roles and tasks have id as a primary key and name which is a unique identifier I want the join table to hold role_id and task_name I''ve tried using habtm with foreign key and association foreign keys set up and I''ve tried using has_many :through ..but they all seem to someone want to work with the

Hi, our app is a situation where users can upload files and also mark files uploaded by other users as their favorites. So for the favorites we are using a simple many-to-many with a tie table. So in attempting that it looks like class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :media_file has_many :media_file end class MediaFile < ActiveRecord::Base

Ok, David says on page 241 that sometimes a many-to-many relation with attributes are better implemented as an actual model instead of using HABTM. Well, I''ve got that situation and I can''t figure it out. All of the examples in the book have HABTM examples between 2 different tables, but I want to have a HABTM relation on 1 table with itself. (e.g., if I have a table Things,

First the data model: class Forum < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :topics, :dependent => :destroy, :order => ''created_at desc'' end class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :topics, :dependent => :destroy has_many :comments, :dependent => :destroy has_many :replies, :dependent => :destroy end class Topic < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to

In AWDWR David says (pg 232), "When a Join Wants to Be a Model: While a many-to-many relation with attributes can often seem like the obvious choice, it?s often a mirage for a missing domain model. When it is, it can be advantageous to convert this relationship into a real model and decorate it with a richer set of behavior. This lets you accompany the data with methods. As an example,

Rails Core Weekly May 29 - June 4 Dear List, Another week has passed, here''s RCW, the McCartney Edition: This weeks kicks of with Josh Susser fixing has_and_belongs_to_many #create method to properly populate joins with new records :http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/67478#new. Check out his test: def test_create_by_new_record devel = Developer.new(:name => "Marcel",

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 think there ara two ways of relate products and categories , basically i want to fix one product(e.g hp dv7....) to some categories (notebook,17"notebooks...) i made a table named categorization(incuding category_id,product_id fields) then in models i write these codes below class Product < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :categories, :through => :categorizations

Hi, we're in the process of setting up large-page support on IBM regattas, but for large-page support the users have to have a set of extra capabilities (CAP_BYPASS_RAC_VMM,CAP_PROPAGATE). This are configured on a per user basis by listing which capability each user have in /etc/security/user. Unfortunately they don't get set when the users log in via OpenSSH (3.1p1). Does anybody know

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, While executing the make after successful configuration (./configure --with-readline=no --without-iconv), the following error occurs: mbf2n11s (Regatta) /saswork/R/R-2.7.0$ make Target "R" is up to date. Target "R" is up to date. Target "R" is up to date. Target "R" is up to date. Target "Makedeps" is up to date. Target "libbz2.a"

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

Am interested in the new PATCH method that will be included in Rails 4, but have a question/concern, and forgive me if I''m misunderstanding it. So, if the request parameter _method is set to "patch", the update is processed as a patch. But, let''s say you have a model called Airplane and Airplane has a collection of FlightCrewMembers which it

On 7/3/20 3:35 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin at gmail.com> > --- > arch/powerpc/include/asm/paravirt.h | 28 ++++++++++ > arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 55 +++++++++++++++++++ > arch/powerpc/include/asm/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 5 ++ > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig | 5 ++ >