Thanks, that's great.
Is there any way to invert the :conditions hash (that is, to be able to
use a != or NOT IN in one of the conditions)? It's obviously possible to
do with a block, but I was just wondering if I could do it with the same
eager loading benefits and terser syntax.
Best,
Rob
On 6 Sep 2013, at 15:50, Jeremy Evans wrote:
On Friday, September 6, 2013 7:04:13 AM UTC-7, Rob Miller wrote:
I realised, in the time it took my post to appear, that this is
absolutely
possible to model in Sequel, and is in fact quite straightforward;
you
simply pass a block to the association:
one_to_many :attachments, :key => :post_parent, :class => self do
|ds|
ds.where(:post_type => 'attachment')
end
Hope this is useful to someone else who's in the same position as me!
(And
please do let me know if it isn't the most efficient/best way to do
things.)
While you can use a block, in this case it may be easier to use
:conditions:
one_to_many :attachments, :key => :post_parent, :class => self,
:conditions=>{:post_type => 'attachment'}
Other than succinctness, the advantages are that eager loading via
eager_graph will automatically work correctly.
Thanks,
Jeremy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sequel-talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sequel-talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
