After some further thought I'm rewriting the whole thing again and
will also build an errors class. you'll probably see a solution later
today.
Sharon,
Two things that would be great to see as you rewrite validations are:
1) Make update(...) check for validations like save(...)
2)
http://p.caboo.se/141009
Here is a proof of concept that has 70% of the stated features
implemented. If you could test it, it'd be great.
On 19 янв, 20:53, Inviz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a proposal on automated query joiner.
Let's assume we have 2 queries:
user_query =
Yeah, I decided to use existing .join methods.
And well, I am not familiar with specs, to write my own, alas.
On 20 янв, 03:14, Aman Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a cool idea. In your first email you mentioned and for
joins, which I don't particularly like (especially since is
I have also ran into that problem many times but I still believe they
should be versioned separately. Just because a bug fix is applied to
sequel_model doesn't mean sequel_core should be updated.
I do believe some sort of conventions should be devised to handle the
inter dependency. At the very
This is a cool idea. In your first email you mentioned and for
joins, which I don't particularly like (especially since is already
used to insert rows).
In your pastie though, it seems you're just using passing in datasets
to join(), which is a cool approach. Just make sure all the existing
