| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
| |
issue #402.
|
|
|
|
| |
it was properly removed
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
After a long list of discussion about the performance problem from using varargs and the reason that we can't find a great pair for it, it would be best to remove support for it for now.
It will come back if we can find a good pair for it. For now, Bon Voyage, `#among?`.
|
|
|
|
| |
suggestion!
|
|
|
|
| |
There're a lot of places in Rails source code which make a lot of sense to switching to Object#in? or Object#either? instead of using [].include?.
|
|
|
|
| |
The old method of redefining destroy meant that clearing the HABTM join table would happen as long as the call to destroy succeeded. Which meant if there was a before_destroy that stopped the instance being destroyed using normal means (returning false, raising ActiveRecord::Rollback) rather than exceptional means the join table would be cleared even though the instance wasn't destroyed. Doing it in an after_destroy hook avoids this and has the advantage of happening inside the DB transaction too.
|
|
callbacks etc) rather than calling a whole bunch of methods with rather long names.
|