Rails Ruby on Rails

Comments and changes to this ticket

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Levin Alexander December 8th, 2009 @ 05:00 PM

  • Tag changed from “2.3.x, activerecord, autosave_association, marked_for_destruction” to “2.3.x, activerecord, autosave_association, marked_for_destruction, patch”
  • Title changed from “ActiveRecord::AutosaveAssociation#unmark_for_destruction” to “[PATCH] ActiveRecord::AutosaveAssociation#unmark_for_destruction”
• 

  Eloy Duran December 28th, 2009 @ 05:16 PM

  Could you give me your use case? I'm missing the context which I need to decide how to handle this. Right now I'm not sure why you would allow the user to marks something for destruction, but in the end remove the mark…

• 

  Eloy Duran December 28th, 2009 @ 05:16 PM

  • State changed from “new” to “incomplete”

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Levin Alexander December 28th, 2009 @ 08:21 PM

  I have a widget with many parts. I am using (something like) nested attributes, but don't want to have to send _delete-attributes when a part is deleted. Instead I want to send a new list of updated parts and have the application figure out the rest.

  As an example, this Widget:

    Widget:
      Part: id: 1, color: green, name: dial
      Part: id: 2, color: red, name: switch
      Part: id: 3, color: blue, name: knob
  

  I am updating this Widget, sending a new list of parts (parts that are not sent should be destroyed):

    :part_attributes => [
      { :id => 2, :color => :red, :name => "switch"},
      { :id => 3, :color => :blue, :name => "knob" }
     ], ...
  

  This should delete the "dial" part, but keep "switch" and "knob" (and not change their IDs)

  The simplest way to implement this (with the patch) is to mark every part as deleted and then selectively keep everything that is still used.

  The alternative (without the patch) is to keep a list of items that are still used, and then delete everything.

  so with the patch:

    def update_widget_parts
      parts.each do |part| part.mark_for_destruction
      @part_attributes.each do |part_attribute|
        part = parts.find_and_update_or_build_from_attributes(part_attribute)
        part.unmark_for_destruction
      end
    end
  

  without the patch:

    def update_widget_parts
      parts_to_keep = []
      @part_attributes.each do |part_attribute|
        part = parts.find_and_update_or_build_from_attributes(part_attribute)
        parts_to_keep << part.id unless part.new_record?
      end
      parts.each do |part|
        part.mark_for_destruction unless part.new_record? or parts_to_keep.include?(part.id)
      end
    end
  

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Levin Alexander December 28th, 2009 @ 09:05 PM

  Joshua White proposed :destroy_missing in Ticket #2563 which addresses this use case. (I'd still like this Patch to be applied because I'm not using nested_attributes)

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Levin Alexander December 29th, 2009 @ 05:02 AM

  Short version of the above:

  I want to implement :destroy_missing, and mark_for_destruction = false/unmark_for_destruction would give me a nice way to do this.

• 

  Eloy Duran December 30th, 2009 @ 03:44 PM

  • State changed from “incomplete” to “open”

  I understand. How about providing a way to do this with nested attributes and without it? (See attached patch)

  You could then use AssociationCollection#mark_missing_records_for_destruction to mark the missing records for destruction yourself.

  • destroy_missing.diff 11.5 KB
• 

  Eloy Duran January 8th, 2010 @ 10:58 AM

  • State changed from “open” to “hold”

  The current patch for destroy_missing can be found on this branch: http://github.com/Fingertips/rails/commits/2-3-experimental

  Any update on whether or not you can use this?

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Jens April 16th, 2010 @ 06:13 AM

  unmark_for_destruction would also come in handy if you want to prevent destruction in certain cases. I was about to open another bug but this might just be another use case for this feature:

  I need a way to prevent destruction of child objects connected to a parent object when certain conditions are met.

  For nested records, I want to provide a form to the user with :delete / :destroy checkboxes. In some cases the user should not be able to delete a child object, there I omit the checkbox, BUT this also needs to be checked server side, because the user can theoretically modify the HTML code and re-enable the checkbox.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  af001 May 5th, 2011 @ 03:00 AM

  私の中で、総合評価のとっても低いアバアバクロホリスタークロ銀座店。アバクロは大好きなんですけどね。一昨日の東京駅付近での打ち合わせの後、散歩がてら久々に行ってきました。そしたらビックリ！相変わらアバクロず、踊っているだけの店員さんとかもいましたが、