Comments and changes to this ticket

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Khurram Virani December 23rd, 2009 @ 07:29 PM

  comment should read:
  

  changing this to :conditions => ["paragraphs.deleted_at IS NULL"] may fix the issue

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Mateo Murphy August 3rd, 2010 @ 03:57 AM

  Just ran into this issue using while using the "paranoid" gem. I don't think it's related to the conditions hash, since the paranoid gem uses the string syntax and still has the issue.

  I'll look into it some more later this week...

• 

  Neeraj Singh August 3rd, 2010 @ 10:06 AM

  • Importance changed from “” to “Low”

  I am not able to reproduce this with rails edge.

  
  ActiveRecord::Schema.define(:version => 20100803085555) do
  
    create_table "brakes", :force => true do |t|
      t.string  "name"
      t.integer "car_id"
    end
  
    create_table "cars", :force => true do |t|
      t.string "name"
    end
  
  end
  class Brake < ActiveRecord::Base
    default_scope :conditions => { :name => 'hello' }
  
    belongs_to :car
  
  end
  class Car < ActiveRecord::Base
    has_many :brakes
  end
  

  > Car.first.brakes
  
  Car Load (0.2ms)  SELECT "cars".* FROM "cars" LIMIT 1
  Brake Load (0.2ms)  SELECT "brakes"."id", "brakes"."name", "brakes"."car_id" FROM "brakes" WHERE ("brakes"."name" = 'hello') AND ("brakes".car_id = 1)
  

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Mateo Murphy August 3rd, 2010 @ 03:52 PM

  Note that the issue is with has_many :through, not regular has many. However I haven't been able to reproduce the problem in a simple test, so there may be something else in my app (another gem maybe) that's causing it.

• 

  Neeraj Singh August 3rd, 2010 @ 04:01 PM

  • State changed from “new” to “invalid”

  This is with has many through.

  ree-1.8.7-2010.01 > Person.first.posts
    Person Load (0.3ms)  SELECT "people".* FROM "people" LIMIT 1
    Post Load (0.2ms)  SELECT "posts".* FROM "posts" INNER JOIN "readers" ON "posts".id = "readers".post_id WHERE ("posts"."name" = 'rails3') AND (("readers".person_id = 1))
  
  
  class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
    has_many :readers
    has_many :people, :through => :readers
  
    default_scope :conditions => {:name => 'rails3'}
  end
  
  class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
    has_many :readers
    has_many :posts, :through => :readers
  end
  

  Closing this ticket. If you are able to reproduce this case then please update this thread and the ticket will be alive again. Thanks.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Mateo Murphy August 3rd, 2010 @ 04:50 PM

  The problem I was having was that I was expecting the default_scope of the join model to be applied, which does not happen: i.e.

  class Blog < ActiveRecord::Base
    has_many :posts
    has_many :users, :through => :posts
  end
  
  class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
    default_scope :conditions => 'published_at IS NOT NULL' 
    
    belongs_to :blog
    belongs_to :user
  end
  
  class User < ActiveRecord::Base
    belongs_to :post
  end
  

  > Blog.first.posts
    Blog Load (0.3ms)  SELECT "blogs".* FROM "blogs" LIMIT 1
    Post Load (0.2ms)  SELECT "posts"."id", "posts"."name", "posts"."blog_id", "posts"."user_id", "posts"."published_at", "posts"."created_at", "posts"."updated_at" FROM "posts" WHERE (published_at IS NOT NULL) AND ("posts".blog_id = 1)
  

  > Blog.first.users
    Blog Load (0.3ms)  SELECT "blogs".* FROM "blogs" LIMIT 1
    User Load (0.2ms)  SELECT "users".* FROM "users" INNER JOIN "posts" ON "users".id = "posts".user_id WHERE (("posts".blog_id = 1))
  

  In this case, I would have expected the default scope of posts to be respected, and only the users of published posts to be returned. I'm not certain if this should be considered a bug or not, though... thoughts?

• 

  Neeraj Singh August 3rd, 2010 @ 05:08 PM

  Blog.first.users will not have the default_scope declared for Post. So technically this is not a bug :-)

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Mateo Murphy August 3rd, 2010 @ 05:27 PM

  No, technically it's not a bug. But intuitively it feels like one :) it may be a feature worth exploring

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Jan Xie November 19th, 2010 @ 05:43 AM

  What is a technically bug?

  In my understand, "default" means all my arel queries respect the default_scope I set. But has_many through create a special case of default_scope now.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  bingbing March 26th, 2011 @ 01:32 AM

  gucci watches

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  releod March 29th, 2011 @ 03:26 PM

  I am also experiencing this issue. I feel it is a valid bug, as the results are not expected - clearly by the creation of this ticket.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  jack dempsey (jackdempsey) March 30th, 2011 @ 08:18 PM

  Just got surprised by this as well. Other threads around net have others agreeing. Anyone want to reopen this and solicit patches or a better reason to not do this?

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Brian Underwood April 4th, 2011 @ 03:34 PM

  I'm also having this issue. If you're defining as association with "through", the through model should be considered. Seems like a bug to me, or at least the way that it should work which may not have been previously considered. One of the things that I love about Ruby and Rails is that they work the way that you would expect them to ;)