Hi Fred, Thanks for this.
yes I can understand why it has never been a problem. It won't be too much of a problem for us either, as the collection variable e.g. @tasks, would normally be filtered with .where() or be ordered with .order(), therefore, they would be different instances. But I logged it as a bug, because it just doesn't seem right. I can't think of any reason why one would want the built instance added to the in memory collection... Anyway, I think I've been a bit cheeky on the Github issue, not sure if I'm going to get another response! Thanks for your reply though. On Tuesday, 22 October 2013 16:26:15 UTC+1, Frederick Cheung wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 21, 2013 4:37:22 PM UTC+1, Neil Williams wrote: >> >> Hi Fred, >> >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> "Using new in this way isn't something I've come across in quite a few >> years of using rails." >> How would you initialise a new Task object given you have the @story >> instance available to you? >> >> > I've always done @story.tasks.build(...) > > The fact that this adds the built instance to the in memory collection has > never been a problem for me > > Fred > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-talk/3003a205-8b6d-493e-a7d5-3a894a17636e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
