Frederick Cheung wrote: >> Why does only the first object in the collection >> have a different object_id, and why does this >> difference go away if the empty a.steps is loaded >> before b is added? Is it a proxy thing? >> > Because .first will hit the database and load a fresh copy (if the > collection is not already loaded). I waffled about this a bit a while > ago: http://www.spacevatican.org/2008/11/15/first-foremost-and-0
Thanks Fred for pointing out the new behaviour of "first" and "last". However that's not the problem here. You get the same behaviour if you use steps[0]. Looking at it again after some sleep, I see that the different b object is actually loaded at the "a.steps << b" line. That is, the object is added by updating the foreign key in the database, loading the collection, then folding in any new_records, which ends up giving you the different b from the database. The association_collection << method could easily be changed to respect the identity of objects being added to a collection. Should this be done to respect the POLS, violated for the OP? -- Rails Wheels - Find Plugins, List & Sell Plugins - http://railswheels.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
