ActiveRecord::Base#saved?

A very simple method which is the opposite of ActiveRecord::Base#new_record?

I believe that this is justified (as opposed !new_record?) as it makes my code more readable. For example:

if @record.saved? as opposed to unless @record.new_record?

and also in rspec matchers:

should be_saved as opposed to should_not be_new_record.

I second Mr. Atzen -

saved? could mean "Did my last saved work how I expected it to?" Whereas what you're actually asking is "Is this object already in the database somewhere?" I'd vote for existing_record? for it's obvious parallels to new_record?

Similarly, I'd change the appended comment from : "Returns true if this object has been saved -- that is, a record for the object exists." to "Returns true if object reflects an existing database record." A test for whether the object ITSELF has been saved would be possibly useful, but not the same thing.

I agree with both of those points. I've updated the patch.

Can you show me a part of one of your projects where you needed this?

@manfred

Yes. On an edit page for a review. The edit page shares the _form partial with the new action, so we only display the delete button when the review is saved.

<% if @review.saved_record? %>
  <%= button_to "Delete", admin_review_path(@review), {:method => :delete} %>
<% end %>

While this example could have used !@review.new_record? this patch is all about readability.

The problem with saved_record? is that it's ambiguous, it means that the record was already in the database and that it was just saved. Also, like Rick said, it's name doesn't suggest that it's the opposite of new_record?.

So, I argue that the following is actually more readable:

<% if not @author.new_record? %>
  <%# do stuff %>
<% end %>

I'd agree that saved_record? is a bit vague. existing_record? is better but seems like more typing :) I typically use:

@@@ruby <% unless @author.new_record? %> <%# do stuff %> <% end %>

Which I think is clear and concise.

oops, foiled by the formatting gods...lets try that again:

<% unless @author.new_record? %> 
  <%# do stuff %> 
<% end %>

@Rob That's what I would normally do as well. I just used "if not @author.new_record?" to correctly counter argue "if !@author.new_record?".

Bottom line, Ruby already has the right solution :)

Added the first message in the ticket body as it's very weird without it :)

Does this cross use with my patch here: http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/p...

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、