On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Everaldo Gomes wrote:
I think it's fine.
Best Regards,
Everaldo
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Erwin <[email protected]> wrote:
Is it wrong to use a beings_to on both side of a one-to-one
association ?
User
belongs_to :account so I have an account_id field
Account
belongs_to :owner, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'user_id'
I can get user.account and account.owner
It runs, but I wonder about any collateral effect...
thanks for your feedback
Which one do you create first? What foreign key value does it get? Do
you always do the create/create/update in a transaction?
Do you ever (ever!) have one without the other?
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :account
end
class Account < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :owner, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'user_id'
end
I think that current versions of ActiveRecord have the right default
for the foreign key (which is the _id after the class name rather than
the association name), but specifying it works just fine, of course.
-Rob
Rob Biedenharn
[email protected] http://AgileConsultingLLC.com/
[email protected] http://GaslightSoftware.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.
