On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Paul wrote: > Here is an example: Thanks for the detailed example. If someone else doesn't get to it before me, and we can't resolve it via email, I'll take a look at this today or tomorrow.
A couple of notes about your models, though I wouldn't expect these things to affect the situation you describe here: 1) You shouldn't need to provide a default value to either ParanoidBoolean (which defaults to false) or ParanoidDateTime (which defaults to nil). 2) You should typically define relationships symmetrically—eg., add a `has 1, :item` or `has n, :items` relationship definition to relate User to Item. I've seen cases—all decidedly more complex than the scenario you describe—where DM's inverse relationship inference fails and fails in confusing ways. > Like I said before, this only happens if I use ParanoidBoolean. If I > just use ParanoidDateTime, everything works fine. My first guess is that this is due to ParanoidBoolean and ParanoidDateTime updating the default scope of the model to which they are bound. However, the difference in behavior between the two challenges that hypothesis. Can you furnish the SQL that is provided when you execute `item.user`? Thanks, Emmanuel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/datamapper?hl=en.
