Hey, Rupert, thx a lot for the patches! I integrated them into my master branch, right after adding (experimental) support for dm-validations. Check it out at
http://github.com/snusnu/dm-accepts_nested_attributes/commits/master There is definitely still a lot to be done to make support for dm-validations solid. Things that come to my mind are basically specs and wrapping everything inside a transaction. The only currently specced (auto)validations are not-null constraints - without dm-constraints in action. A small and probably incomplete list of things to do would be: * specs for custom validations * specs for adding associated resource errors to the saving resource * the code is in place but completely unspecced, didn't even check in irb * specs for atomic commits (transactions) * i was playing with wrapping every save inside a transaction => http://pastie.org/446060 * i can see that this would produce nested transactions ... is this a problem? I was talking to Michael Klishin and Dan Kubb on irc, and we seem to agree that (at least parts of) the specs for the integration of dm-accepts_nested_attributes with dm-validations should probably live in the dm-validations specsuite. The main reason for this is that it seems wrong to spec every possible (or worse, only some) usage of a validation in combination with nested model assignment, inside the dm-accepts_nested_attributes specsuite. It should be possible to write specs that prove once and for all, that the way dm-accepts_nested_attributes alters the Resource#save behavior plays well with the way dm-validations alters this behavior. Since saving nested models with validation is basically a matter of validating and saving all associated resources *in the right order* (belongs_to first, then has) within one atomic commit (transaction), it seems logical to place these specs inside dm-validations specsuite. That being said, it's obvious that there is still some work to do. I will work on things as I need them for my main project, but me and Rupert would still appreciate any additional feedback or help in any possible way :-) cheers snusnu On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 20:23, Rupert Voelcker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Rupert is kind enough to work on this in his fork, thx again Rupert! > > and tis done - and I presume it'll be in Martins repo too once he's > had a chance to look it over. > > Rupert > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
