Hello Michael,
2005/12/5, Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 12/6/05, Francois Beausoleil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'd like to get a review of ticket #3005:
> > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3005
>
> I like the general approach, How feasible is it to expand
On 12/6/05, Francois Beausoleil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'd like to get a review of ticket #3005:
> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3005
I like the general approach, How feasible is it to expand the
approach to handle columns called quote?
ie.
CREATE TABLE somethings
i
Hi !
Another patch that I feel needs more attention:
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3024
This patch ensures aggregations are reloaded when the parent record
is. This bit me during unit testing. I was going bonkers thinking
there was something wrong with my code.
Anyway, this patch applies t
Hello all,
I'd like to get a review of ticket #3005: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3005
This patch prevents the following kind of errors:
class QuoteLine < AR:Base
belongs_to :quote
end
QuoteLine.find_by_product_id(312)
SELECT * FROM quote_lines WHERE product_id = <#Quote:0x39420>
#quote
> I just spent an hour refactoring the patch in #3005 so it was
> applicable again. Is there a way to make patches go in faster ? Can a
> committer apply the patch so it doesn't get out of date anymore ?
I responded in another thread, but basically, talk about the patch on
this list, you'll get f
> Please raise issues loudly and in every available forum :)
I'd like to suggest that more traffic on this list is a good thing.
That would also be my suggestion to Francois.
If you discuss patches here, I'm more than happy to apply them as it
gets more 'eyes' on it than a trac ticket does.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 5, 2005, at 12:55 PM, Trevor Squires wrote:
it looks like a recent change (3218) has borked connection
specifications in some way.
When I run my unit tests it fails because even though it's
connection to the test database it's using the u
Hi,
it looks like a recent change (3218) has borked connection
specifications in some way.
When I run my unit tests it fails because even though it's connection
to the test database it's using the username (and I presume,
password) of the *development* user.
This does not occur in 3217
Hi !
I just spent an hour refactoring the patch in #3005 so it was
applicable again. Is there a way to make patches go in faster ? Can a
committer apply the patch so it doesn't get out of date anymore ?
Another plus is I wouldn't have to do patch management on my end too
:) DRY they say !
Than
