On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-8, Ben Alavi wrote: > > That makes sense to me, although it looks like what should happen before > your change is that > > > https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel/commit/de183ed7ac6ad8df5353f54be9579350977d1c16#diff-0cd793d48726eacb1a6cb8af71e125a4L2602 > > removes the reciprocal object and then > > https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel/commit/de183ed7ac6ad8df5353f54be9579350977d1c16#diff-0cd793d48726eacb1a6cb8af71e125a4L2606 > > adds the same object back > > ...so I'm trying to figure out why that didn't happen. >
It did happen, it's just the saving is in between those two lines of code. A more general approach would be to actually check the reciprocal association, and make no changes to the reciprocal association if the current object is the same as the reciprocal association. I'll look into that. It's probably slower, but should be more correct for other cases where the associations cache is manipulated directly. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
