Rails Ruby on Rails → 3.x

Comments and changes to this ticket

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Diego Algorta February 17th, 2009 @ 06:37 PM

  Maybe you'd like to test if the patch in #1960 fixes this problem? Haven't had the time to test your diff there.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Jonathan Garvin February 18th, 2009 @ 02:30 AM

  Thanks for the suggestion Diego, but when I apply your patch, my test attached above still fails, and a new test fails ( test_named_scope(DefaultScopingTest) ).

  I don't think the issue I'm dealing with has is specific to named scopes but instead to associations proxies in general.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Ryan Berdeen February 18th, 2009 @ 07:00 AM

  In fact, the same problem occurs with named scopes and class methods, but it's the basically the inverse of #1960 (I thought they were dups at first, sorry for the confusion). Class methods called through association proxies and named scopes are both evaluated within the context of a with_scope. Adding

  
  named_scope :having_author_id, lambda { |author_id| {:conditions => ['`categorizations`.author_id = ?', author_id]} }
  

  to Categorization and then doing

  
  count_without_class_method = authors(:david).categorizations.find(:all).select {|cz| cz.category.categorizations.size > 1 }.size
      count_with_class_method = Categorization.having_author_id(authors(:david).id).that_have_siblings_with_common_category_parent.size
      assert_equal(count_without_class_method,count_with_class_method)
  

  gives the same result as accessing it through the association_collection.

  Either way, to get the result you want, just put the cz.category.categorizations.size within an exclusive scope:

  
  def that_have_siblings_with_common_category_parent
    find(:all).select {|cz| with_exclusive_scope {cz.category.categorizations.size > 1} }
  end
  
  With this, the test passes.
  

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Jonathan Garvin February 18th, 2009 @ 07:46 AM

  Thanks Ryan, that's good to know. But I wonder if that should be considered the "correct" way to do that, or is that a hack/workaround/band-aid? I'm inclined to think it's a hack and we'd be better off solving the underlying problem (though, I don't know what that would be, yet). However, I'd rather be proven wrong before I waste any time trying to "fix" something that nobody else wants fixed. ;-)

• 

  Jeremy Kemper May 4th, 2010 @ 06:48 PM

  • Milestone changed from “2.x” to “3.x”

  [bulk edit]

• 

  Santiago Pastorino February 2nd, 2011 @ 04:42 PM

  • State changed from “new” to “open”
  • Importance changed from “” to “”

  This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not been commented on for at least three months.

  The resources of the Rails core team are limited, and so we are asking for your help. If you can still reproduce this error on the 3-0-stable branch or on master, please reply with all of the information you have about it and add "[state:open]" to your comment. This will reopen the ticket for review. Likewise, if you feel that this is a very important feature for Rails to include, please reply with your explanation so we can consider it.

  Thank you for all your contributions, and we hope you will understand this step to focus our efforts where they are most helpful.

• 

  Santiago Pastorino February 2nd, 2011 @ 04:42 PM

  • State changed from “open” to “stale”