On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 18:07, Paul McNett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/25/11 11:32 AM, Jacek Kałucki wrote: > > I restored previous behaviour, where the save method raises > > NoRecordsException exception. > > This eliminates one failure in tests. > > But I can't understand such approach, because if there are no rows, it's > > mean there are no changes. > > The saveAll() method doesn't raise such exception, by the way. > > I think the difference is that calling save() where there are no records is > exceptional, since save() means save the current record. There's no current > record, > so the exception is raised. > > saveAll(), however, means "save all records". If there are no records, it > isn't > exceptional because the calling code wasn't assuming there were records, as > with save(). > > However, I could easily get behind changing this.
+1 to change it and spit out a message to the log. I understand the logic, but I don't think it's so exceptional as to raise an exception over aborting quietly. Nate _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-dev This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[email protected]
