Thanks ... it runs , but as mentioned it has some side effects.... even if I cannot have one side wo the other one ... learn a lot about collateral effects...
On Dec 1, 11:35 pm, Robert Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Kad Kerforn wrote in post #1034622: > > > 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 > > belongs_to should be on the side of a one-to-one association that > contains the foreign key (same as a one-to-many). > > The other side (the side without a foreign key should use has_one NOT > belongs to. > > User > has_one :account > > Account > belongs_to :owner, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'user_id' > > Or you could use the standard conventions: > > Account > belongs_to :user > > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.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.
