On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:50:03 PM UTC-5, rob wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Colin Law wrote: > On 15 December 2010 17:01, > Tim Shaffer wrote: >> You could just use a method instead... >> >> class > User < ActiveRecord::Base >> >> has_many :payments >> >> def > testing_payments >> payments.where(:testing => testing) >> end > > That > would be even better as a named scope. > > Colin Actually, it would be > better if it worked: class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :payments def > testing_payments payments.where(:testing => true) # testing is a local? end > end somebody = User.find(params[:id]) Then, you could say: > somebody.testing_payments Or add a scope to Payment class Payment < > ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user scope :testing, where(:testing => true) > end And you'd say: somebody.payments.testing Either would work. If testing > is a instance method of User, then the original suggestion might actually be > "better." -Rob Rob Biedenharn [email protected] > http://AgileConsultingLLC.com/ [email protected] > http://GaslightSoftware.com/
The problem with this is that he doesn't want to find Payments where testing = true, he wants to find Payments where testing = value of testing attribute for the User instance. -- 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.
