similar to: bypass defualt scope.

Hola a todos: Tengo un bucle que tarda horas y me gustaría optimizarlo. Me explico. Simplificando, tengo una tabla con 332.505 registros de 63.738 individuos. Cada registro es una medida realiza de unos días a unos meses o años después de la anterior. Lo que quiero es borrar aquellos registros que entre él y el anterior hayan transcurrido menos de 6 meses, de manera que me quede una tabla con

Hola, ¿qué tal? Modifica esto: ---- library(plyr) n_reg <- 332505 n_ids <- 63738 dif_days <- 90 df <- data.frame( id = sample(n_ids, n_reg, replace = T), dates = sample(1000, n_reg, replace = T) ) # important! df <- df[order(df$id, df$date),] n_borrar <- 1 while (n_borrar > 0) { df <- ddply(df, .(id), transform, delta = c(1000, diff(dates))) # find the

Muchas gracias, Carlos, por esta ayuda! Desconocia la existencia de ddply y me cuesta interpretar el código. Estoy en ello. Realmente es mucho, pero mucho, más rápido. El problema es que si lo aplico a la tabla dde pruebas: id dates 1 1 2023-01-01 2 1 2023-05-15 3 1 2023-12-01 4 2 2023-01-01 5 2 2023-04-01 6 2 2023-12-01 7 1 2023-03-15 8 3 2023-01-01 dif_days <- 180 #

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:

Prueba así: --- dif_days <- 180 # Cambiado 6 meses df <- data.frame( id = c(1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3), dates = as.Date(c("2023-01-01", "2023-05-15", "2023-12-01", "2023-01-01", "2023-04-01", "2023-12-01", "2023-03-15", "2023-01-01")) ) # important! df <- df[order(df$id, df$dates),] n_borrar

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

I know I can set default_scope for individual active record model, but can I set one up for the whole application? thanks -- 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 rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

Hi, Rails 2.3.2 class TestD < ActiveRecord::Base default_scope :limit => 12 named_scope :limit, lambda { |num| { :limit => num} } end ruby script/console >> TestD.all TestD Load (0.7ms) SELECT * FROM "test_ds" LIMIT 12 => [] >> TestD.limit(14) TestD Load (0.3ms) SELECT * FROM "test_ds" LIMIT 12 => [] Any ideas why the default limit

Hello, I am trying to convert three applications to multitenant, all of them have same structure difference is only in little functions and template designs. All of them using cattr_accessor for setting currencies and other data, and it works perfectly Now i added app_id as cattr_accessor to App model to use it in default_scope to implement multi-tenancy class App < ActiveRecord::Base

Here are my scopes: default_scope :order => ''posted_on DESC'', :conditions => { :status => ''visible'' } named_scope :positive, :conditions => { :rating => ''positive'', :status => ''visible'' } named_scope :neutral, :conditions => { :rating => ''neutral'', :status =>

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

I read these: http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/185297#new http://www.freezzo.com/2008/05/14/override-default-find-conditions-for-model/ it works, it override the .find perfectly, however it does not cover .find_by_id or other .find_by_XXX Is there anyway to override all the find function of a modal? I want to set the default "select" for User modal, only return name and id, but not the

I would like to apply logical delete in my application(Instead of permanently deleting a record just have been marked as deleted). I have Added *available* column to all tables with default value *true*. Now I want common place to write the following code for all models. 1. Write the instance method which make ''available'' column value false when user clicks on

Hello, I''m completely new to Rspec testing and I''m finding it very difficult to mock specific objects. In this test, I have a before block setup as such: [code] before do setup_controller_for_warden controller.session[:operation_id] = 1 @operator = Factory :operator sign_in :operator, @operator @persist_herd = Herd.new

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 8 January 2013 16:53, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "fix user's stupidity" here - could you >> clarify? >> > > Buffer overrun on foo[20] and relying on it for bar[20]. > > It might not even be an

Here''s my issue: running ruby -I test test/unit/something_test.rb for each of my unit tests works perfectly. However, running rake test:units brings errors in all of them - some object becomes nil for some reason. Why might this be happening? Specifics: the object that is successfully not nil when I run the unit tests one-by-one but becomes nil when I do rake test:units is defined like

Can acts_as_ferret search only one of the inherit models in the hierarchy of STI models? Say you have Contents, with types articles and comments. I know that you do Contents.find_by_contents, but can you also create indexed for Comment and Articles? Thanks for you help Miguel -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On 8 January 2013 16:53, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by "fix user's stupidity" here - could you > clarify? > Buffer overrun on foo[20] and relying on it for bar[20]. It might not even be an error to access foo[50] even though foo only has 20 elements (via pointer indirection rules), but it's user error to do so,

I''m using Rails 3.0.0rc and have the following models: class User  has_many :readings  has_many :conversations, :through=>:readings end class Reading  belongs_to :user  belongs_to :conversation end class Conversation  has_many :readings  has_many :users, :through=>:readings end and this controller code: class ConversationsController  def show    @user =

Hi, I was wondering if there is a way to skip the application of a named_scope to calls made in legacy migrations. I am working with some old migrations that include some data manipulation tasks, and my default scope is preventing those migrations from running. I''m trying to avoid editing those migration files with with_exclusive_scope. Thanks, -G -- Posted via