My fork is just stuff I need to make my product work. I'd rather not have a fork, so anything there is welcome to be merged into the main trunk.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 6:24 PM, dd <[email protected]> wrote: > > You rock! > > thank you! > dd > > PS: Is there any general info about your fork? Purposes, policies, and > so on? > > On Jul 11, 8:58 pm, Chris Eppstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > My fork of active_scaffold has support for this: > http://github.com/caring/active_scaffold/commit/48f24367fced7ecda6115... > > > > Basically it sends the record along > > and falls back to the old behavior. Too bad there's not a way to > > inspect the arity of a method like you can with a block. > > > > chris > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:54 PM, dd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, I read a few post about the matter, but I am confused. > > > > > Is it possible to disable a vanilla update link checking some data in > > > the record itself or in any associated record? > > > > > I cannot find a way to do it, it seems that: > > > > > - authorized_for? is called on an empty instance > > > - authorized_for_update? is called as a class method (i.e self == > > > TheRecordClass). > > > - the security_method at the controller level does not receive any > > > arguments > > > > > Any suggestion? > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ActiveScaffold : Ruby on Rails plugin" 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/activescaffold?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
