similar to: Asymmetrical HABTM(?)

I have a people table: CREATE TABLE people ( id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment, first_name varchar(75) default NULL, middle_name varchar(75) default NULL, last_name varchar(75) default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=1272 ; and a people_people table: CREATE TABLE people_people ( person_id int(11) unsigned NOT NULL,

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 very confused about where to put the belongs_to and the has_one (and other relationship identifiers). I have read the RDoc and the agile book many times about this and I think i still see it backwards. Let me outline my app so you have an understanding... I have 2 tables: Schools { id, school_name, address_id } and Addresses { street1, street2, city, state, zip, country } *** this

Hi, I m very new to Ruby. I bought a book "Ruby on Rails" and I think I understand some concepts. My question is : Is there a way to not use "Cookies" or "Sessions Variables" to keep some information about the user. I ask this question because I would like to prevent some cases where the user browser won''t accept cookies. I m from Asp 3.0, and I

Hi folks, Newbie issues...I''m prototying an Apache/Mongrel configuration setup as follows: * Two Mongrel servers each serving a Rails application. * Apache front-end. * Linux system (CentOS) * The plan is to create two virtual hosts. /ETC/HOSTS LOOKS LIKE THIS: # Do not remove the following line, or various programs # that require network functionality will fail. 127.0.0.1

Hi, I have a scenario where a doctor can have one or more specialties. For each doctor, one and only one of her specialties can be designated as primary. So I have tables called doctors, specialties, and doctors_specialties, the last of which has a boolean is_primary column. The doctor model class specifies that: has_and_belongs_to_many :specialties I want to enforce, at the lowest possible

Folks, Am new to RoR and am building an example to get myself familiar. I am running into a simple issue while creating a user registration page. I have a User and Address models defined as below (partial/relevant code included below). User has_one address and Address belongs_to user. I have a foreign key defined in address table that refers to user(id) In a form I take in username, password,

During development, I''d like to see my Rails app from a computer other than localhost on a Linux system and also want to change the default port#. I thought this would do it: Linux server: $ script/server -b 10.4.1.84 -p 5432 => Booting WEBrick... => Rails application started on http://10.4.1.84:5432 => Ctrl-C to shutdown; call with --help for options ... Windows browser URL:

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,

Greetings railsers - I''m trying to add to a collection through HABTM, but the sql insert is trying to insert a PK rather than letting mysql produce the auto_increment''ed PK. ## @medication_dose holds a validated, saved model @medication_dose.medication_frequencies << MedicationFrequency.find (:all) The above bails with, Mysql::Error: #23000Duplicate

While the habtm model for rails is very easy to use, some tables don''t seem to fit easily into that structure. The problem is that the link is (I believe) always done on the id column. One common table in a lot of databases is a state codes table with one column for state code, another for state name, and possibly others for different things about the state. Other tables that have

So I have 2 models: Picture and Comment. Pictures have many Comments, but I''d like for users to be able to post Pictures in Comments, so Comments will have one Picture (possibly). This creates a kind of circular relationship it looks like, and the only way I could think of to implement this is with has_and_belongs_to_many. Am I right, or is there a better way to do this?

hey all, I have three tables like this: forum (id,title) usergroup(id,title) forum_perms(usergroup_id,forum_id,read,write,post) is there a way to deal with that kind of relation with rails such as by using has_and_belongs_to_many kind of stuff? thanx in advance Pat --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

I am very new to Rails. After skimming through the documentation over the last several days, I''m struggling with the appropriate use of belongs_to. My main question is whether a model can have several belongs_to declarations. I have not seen any examples online show that usage. If it can, then I would like to know if it''s poor form or what the best practices are around

I''m a rails newb and have been Googling about this, but I''m still stumped. Not showing everything here, but basically it should be a pretty common setup so I''m sure others know what I''m doing wrong. - A meter can belong to many meter_groups - A meter_group can have many meters. - A user can ''subscribe'' to viewing a meter_group (Subscription)

Hello all This is my first post so excuse the basic question. (and any repeats I just got an email saying this post was too big so I have re-submitted a smaller version) I was following the thread on http://lists.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/2006-May/038988.html regarding the STI on HABTM for RoR. I have a very similar problem and was hoping for some help. I have the

>From the docs: "Note that any fields in the join table will override matching field names in the two joined tables. As a consequence, having an "id" field in the join table usually has the undesirable result of clobbering the "id" fields in either of the other two tables." I do have an ID field in the join table, and as a result it''s clobbering the ID

All, If I have a table that has several discrete fields that all point to the same associated field, how do I model it. Specifically, If I have a project table that has 2 fields: specifying_company, and responsible_company. And one table of associated companies, how do I do the :belongs_to / :has_many stuff ie. For a given project company A may be writing the spec, but company B may be paying

I am sure some of you can give me an insight into this. This is more towards the database design for the scenario below: Say for example, I have a person table and this person can have different address types. One could be Home and the other could be say Office. Should be model this Table people id fname lname Table addresses id person_id addr1 addr2 .... or Table people id fname lname

HI, i use models User and Groups connected with many to many association, so i have users table, groups and groups_users. lets say i create one user and one group. next i add a group to user. so now my table groups_users has one entry i.e. group_id | user_id _________|________ 1 | 1 ok, when i delete both my group and user, above entry is not deleted, thus leaving alone without