Hey Fred, The model in question does have a HABTM association, but based on reading the ticket I thought it was unrelated because I don't have a dependent destroy set up and am only operating on the parent. Maybe not.
I had looked at the new and old versions of destroy() but it appeared they were returning the same value. destroy() calls freeze(). In a console session with a sample object frozen? returns false with my callback enabled, and true with it commented out, so that appears to be working. I guess I'd need to set up 3.0.4 again and check the output to see if it was returning a different (falsy) value... On Mar 23, 11:26 am, Frederick Cheung <[email protected]> wrote: > Is this using a habtm association? There was a change to how destroy > happens with those (which I personally think is broken) to do with > when the before_destroy callbacks run relative to the clearing out of > associated rows. It looks to me like a side effect of that change > could be that the return value of destroy could change > > Fred -- 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.
