Here are the SQLs generated:
SELECT "id", "user_id" FROM "items" WHERE ("deleted_ts" IS NULL AND
"deleted" = 'f' AND "id" = 1) LIMIT 1
SELECT "id", "email" FROM "users" WHERE ("deleted_ts" IS NULL AND "id"
= 1 AND "deleted" = 'f') LIMIT 1
On Aug 3, 4:12 pm, Emmanuel Gomez <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
