Rails Ruby on Rails

Comments and changes to this ticket

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Damien MATHIEU May 20th, 2010 @ 08:25 AM

  I wouldn't be sure there's the need for two different attributes. The behavior of the nested model depends of the relation configuration.
  Here, you don't want the tag to be deleted when it's relation with the post is.

  Then you set your relation with a :dependent option to delete.

  has_many :tags, :through => :post_tags, :dependent => :delete
  

  I guess every time you want to delete a nested relation, you want to do it the same way.
  Or at least if at some point, you want to delete the tag, it's not an interface implementation but a logic one. So it should remain in the activerecord's relation.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Jan Xie May 20th, 2010 @ 10:43 AM

  I tried this way (and many other ways) of using :dependent, I think it doesn't work (I'm using rails on github). And in rails code it says:

  #   *Warning:* This option is ignored when used with <tt>:through</tt> option.
  

  ref: http://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activerecord/lib/active_r...

  If this does work, then yes my proposal is needless.

• 

  Rizwan Reza May 21st, 2010 @ 12:43 AM

  • no changes were found...
• 

  Santiago Pastorino February 9th, 2011 @ 12:31 AM

  • State changed from “new” to “open”

  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 9th, 2011 @ 12:31 AM

  • State changed from “open” to “stale”

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  bingbing March 26th, 2011 @ 02:02 AM

  louis vuitton watches

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  alberto April 5th, 2011 @ 07:32 PM

  This request seems to have sense to me, since I agree with you there is no simple way (i.e. without using before_save hooks) to just delete the relationship without destroying the object. I would like to have the ticket re-opened or to see some more explanation.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  alberto April 5th, 2011 @ 07:34 PM

  P.S. the same is true if you have an HABTM relation instead of an has_many :through.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Kane April 6th, 2011 @ 12:30 AM

  alberto
  

  This request seems to have sense to me, since I agree with you there is no simple way

  This request does not make any sense to me.
  it does what it says, it destroys the tag.

  the so call "no simple way"

   some_post.tags.clear
  

  you may want to simply stick to associations instead of nested attributes for your use case.
  or simply use has_and_belongs_to_many if your join model needs no logic.

  Jan Xie
  

  In this case, most people want to unlink post with tags only, instead of destroying tags (I guess).

  if you want this you may simply want to use the shown method.
  Also you probably want to define dependent destroy for the join model, so you dont leave orphans behind if you destroy a tag or a post.

  class Post
    has_many :post_tags, :dependent => :destroy
  end
  
  class Tag
    has_many :post_tags, :dependent => :destroy
  end
  

  please set this to invalid.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  alberto April 6th, 2011 @ 12:44 AM

  I agree with almost everything. The only arguable thing is:

  you may want to simply stick to associations instead of nested attributes for your use case.

  If this is the philosophy behind nested attributes (i.e. «you simply CAN'T do this with nested attributes, manage the associations by your self, you moron!») than it's ok. But I don't see any reason why one shouldn't want this non-destructive behavior while still using nested attributes.

  Btw, my "no simple way" referred to the fact that standard forms (e.g. nested_form_for) rely on the product.tags_attributes array. If you want to use them (and they're great to keep your views clean) and NOT destroy associated objects, you have to do something like

  before_safe god_save_the_tags!
  private
    def god_save_the_tags!
      tags.select(&:marked_for_detruction?).each do |tag|
        tag.reload # Notice that there is no "unmark_for_destruction" right now,
                   # but I'm pretty sure I saw a related ticket somewhere here
        tags.delete(tag)
      end
    end
  

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Kane April 6th, 2011 @ 04:26 PM

  I see.

  It would be nive if :destroy and :delete would behave exactly as calling the corresponding methods on the association.