I see your point that Rails is following the STI pattern. However I can't see why the column should be static in the schema and not to use the virtual one. I will have to spare some time to work on this to find out whats going to happen.
Thank you! On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:42:11 PM UTC+3, Xavier Noria wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Ivailo Bardarov <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Doesn't matter if the column comes statically or dynamically. The presence >> of the "type" virtual-column in the record should be enough. >> >> record[inheritance_column].present? >> >> instead of >> >> record[inheritance_column].present? && columns_hash.include?( >> inheritance_column) >> >> What do you think? >> > > > AR assumes the column exists. STI needs the column to perform certain > queries related to the hierarchy as I showed before. > > If AR cannot assume the column exists, then we need to introduce logic to > account for that in those queries, and so on. The design deviates. There's > no need for the design to deviate, AR models STI and STI has a type column. > > > -- 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/d/optout.
