So. in the meantime, you can run the code in my gist. It reflects out the habtm declarations and generates the migration code. It's only a part of what the hobo_migrator, for the creation phase. But it would be fun to link it in.
On Nov 5, 10:14 am, Matt Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 5, 2009, at 12:57 PM, tmorgan99 wrote: > > > But you are right, I still have to say HABTM, as in > > A HABTM B and/or > > B HABTM A > > > I cannot get away with > > A has_many B and > > B has_many A. > > > Ideally, a tool should discover a missing join table in this > > situation. > > I doubt Hobo will ever have the capacity to "discover" a join table in > this situation - it's simply not logical to expect it to rewrite your > code for you. > > Support for explicitly declared HABTM should be arriving shortly; it > wasn't practical until 2.3 to even try to guess the table schema, as > habtm join tables were allowed to have "extra" fields that were > returned in the associated records. That functionality was removed in > 2.3, in favor of has_many :through for decorated join tables. > > --Matt Jones --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hobo Users" 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/hobousers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
