On 16 February 2011 09:44, Colin Law <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 February 2011 05:42, Mark Kremer <[email protected]> wrote: >> It may seem a bit odd with the where method chained twice like that, but the >> query with the OR (Rails 3.0.4) will probably get you the result you want >> whereas the query with the AND (Rails 3.0.3) will return 0 records at all >> times (because the same attribute can't have two values). > > I disagree that OR is the result one would want if one were to code > this. I agree it is apparently a useless query and obviously one > would not code it exactly like this. If the sql for this is > incorrectly generated however, it is likely that a more subtle, and > useful, query may also be encoded wrongly. The principle of chained > where is that the first one is performed, then the next is performed > on the results of the first. At least that is how I understand it. > > Consider: > State.where(:abbreviation => 'TX').where("abbreviation = 'NE'") > This (correctly in my view) uses AND in the query. > As 3.0.4 stands at the moment the above yields a different result to > State.where(:abbreviation => 'TX').where(:abbreviation => 'NE') > which seems incorrect to me. > > I will post on rails-core to see what the response is there.
I posted to rails-core and apparently it is by design rather than a bug. The question seems to have stirred up a bit of a furore however, see http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/407f746fd1de6636 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.
