Rails Ruby on Rails → 2.x

Comments and changes to this ticket

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Jason Dew July 14th, 2008 @ 05:30 PM

  Don't see an easy fix, but a workaround is s/<</+=/

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Jason Dew July 14th, 2008 @ 07:09 PM

  This is the same problem as http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/p...

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Tom Ward July 25th, 2008 @ 12:26 PM

  This ticket is invalid. Dirty checking will only currently work if you replace an attribute with a new value, not edit it in place.

  Instead you should do:

  t = Topic.find(1)
  t.title_will_change!
  t.title = t.title << "new"
  t.changed?
  # => true
  

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Clemens Kofler July 25th, 2008 @ 02:22 PM

  • Tag set to “activerecord”

  I agree with Tom. It is known that all changes that don't go through standard assignment with = will not mark the attribute as changed.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  quake wang July 26th, 2008 @ 02:26 AM

  I know will_change can resolve this issue as a temp solution, however, how to explain the inconsistent of string / numeric field?

  create_table :topics do |t|

  t.string :title

  t.integer :score

  end

  t = Topic.find(1)

  t.title = t.title.contact(33)

  t.changed?

  1. => false

  t.score = t.score.*(33)

  t.changed?

  1. => true

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Tom Ward July 26th, 2008 @ 10:30 AM

  What does t.title.contact(33) do?

  If you set the title to the same value it was before, changed? will return false.

  If you set it to a new value, it should return true.

• 

  Pratik July 26th, 2008 @ 03:19 PM

  • State changed from “new” to “invalid”

  Patch please.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Clemens Kofler July 26th, 2008 @ 03:29 PM

  I've tested this and I can confirm it.

  A little something to think about before someone actually spends time on creating a patch that isn't really necessary:

  With t.title << "new", I would actually think that the title changes. t.title = t.title << "new" looks intriguing to me because it looks like it does the actual assignment twice. IMO you shouldn't "reassign" the variable when using the << operator.

  What would make sense, though, is having something like t.title = t.title + "new" or its short form, t.title += "new". Both of them actually work perfectly fine and t.title_changed? returns true.

  The important question to ask is whether one should use something misleading like t.title = t.title << "new" when there's two valid ways around that even look more logical. One is, as I said, t.title += "new" and the other would be to use t.title_will_change! t.title << "new".

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Zach Holman July 31st, 2008 @ 09:00 PM

  I can confirm this as well.

  There's some discussion on whether something is "changed" if the contents are changed. To me that seems like a valid case. I was working on a serialized array to a model, and if I do something like:

  @

  my_model.serialized_array << 'new pushed element'

  my_model.changed # intuitively this should return ["serialized_array"]

  @

  I feel that this is a common scenario where a serialized array needs modification, and the very idea of something being modified is, well, a change.