On 1 June 2010 14:21, Michael Pavling <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 June 2010 14:03, Colin Law <[email protected]> wrote: >> Michael >> To some extent I agree with Tom here, ideally it should be possible to >> get straight to the answer without going through the sql. The >> condition is that the number of authors for the book should be greater >> than 5 and >> that published should be true, so the requirement is fully defined, >> the question is how to tell active record that that is what is >> required. To some extent the framework has failed (or one is just >> trying to do something too complex for it) if one has to work out the >> sql first then work out how to tell ActiveRecord to generate that sql. > > Colin, I doubt that you or I would *need* to do the SQL first for our > own models; but I often do so anyway before writing a complex finder > as a safety-net to ensure Rails returns what I want. But if the OP > makes up an example that doesn't match his models, then we can't post > solutions. If he has no idea what the SQL needs to be to return data > from his database, then maybe there's some more non-Rails learning to > cover. >... > > But unless the OP can be *sure* the results are correct for his > implementation (by checking it against a SQL DB query) then it strikes > me as a little bit of a worry.
Playing devil's advocate again, I disagree, if one understands ActiveRecord syntax fully and one codes up a find, then one *can* be sure that it is correct. It should not be necessary to check that the SQL is correct as one is then suggesting that ActiveRecord has made a mistake. There may be other reasons to check the sql of course, efficiency worries for example. Colin -- 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.
