> Exists is only really for indicating whether or not there's a record > associated with that ID, if you want to obey all those other rules you > can just use .first(...) right? I'm -1 on this as it stands as exists
I'm not sure what you mean by "all those other rules". The exists? method does take scope into account, but only partially - it ignores :include - and so it bombs in certain scenarios (see my test case). This bug needs to be fixed. If my fix is not appropriate, then I would really appreciate if you could explain why, and even better if you could propose an alternative approach. > is really only there for this high-performance use case e.g. rarely Well, I'm not sure it is relevant to discuss how often the method is used here. The method is a public part of the API and has been for a long time AFAIK and it needs to work. Correct functionality trumps performance. Note that exists? is invoked by include? in association_collection.rb. That's how the bug was triggered for me. Do you think there is a significant performance impact of my change and if so why? Thanks for taking the time to discuss this! Cheers Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
