Is using inverse_of "everywhere you can think of" still a good approach in rails 4.0.3? We are sort of doing the same (except polymorphic relations), but just doesn't feel right.
Thanks, Dmitri. > On Feb 22, 2014, at 5:56 AM, Gary Weaver <[email protected]> wrote: > > Xavier, > > Thanks very much for spending the time to respond fully to this. > > I think that this may have started when we started using inverse_of > everywhere we could in our models. Even though inverse_of doesn't have > references to the other model constants in the models themselves, perhaps on > the AR side (I've not looked) there are references to constants that are > interfering with constant reloading after models are updated. That is > off-the-cuff, and I'm probably wrong. > > Not sure when we will be able to successfully provide a simple example to > reproduce, but I might spend some time today seeing if I can do it > independent of passenger and just using AR with examples of various test > models using inverse_of and if I have any luck reproducing, will link to > example setup. I bet it will take more time to reproduce, though. > > Thanks again for your help! > > Gary > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
