Sorry - That should have been, Message.public, not messages.public. named_scope adds a class method
On Jun 21, 9:55 am, Gavin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > why not add a named scope to messages: > > named_scope :public, :conditions => {:public => true} > > So you can call either: > user.messages > messages.public > or > user.messages.public > > Is that what you're looking for? > > Also, I think the standard for join tables is to name them in > alphabetical order, so messages_users. > > Gavin > > On Jun 21, 7:05 am, Alexander Trauzzi <rails-mailing-l...@andreas- > > s.net> wrote: > > Hello all! > > > I'm looking to get some help answering a design problem I'm facing. I'm > > definitely familiar with how models house all the business logic, but > > when it RoR, I'm somewhat confused :) > > > If I have Users, and they have a HABTM relationship to Messages: > > > Users > > o ID > > o Name > > > Messages > > o ID > > o Body > > o Public > > > Users_Messages > > o User_ID > > o Message_ID > > > What is the best practice to check two criteria for a kind of > > authorization check? > > The first being simply evaluating the HABTM relationship using > > user.messages. > > The second being that a user can see all messages where Public==true? > > > Both are separate, yet I want to be able to generate one list from these > > two separate criteria in one call, mixing the results. > > > Hopefully I'm clear enough, thanks in advance for any help! > > -- > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
