Hi,
In my user model I validates_uniqueness_of :login.
In my app, users can edit their information.
If the user change the name but not the login, the record gets
rejected.
Of course the login is already used, but by the same user that it is
editing his information.
The record should not be rejected right ?
Could someone tell me if it is normal that it gets rejected ?
Thanks,
Mickael.
So, nobody thinks that validates_uniqueness_of should accept the
edition of the same record ?
Should I add an on create condition and validate the record “by hand”
on edition ?
Mickael.
Mickael Faivre-macon wrote:
So, nobody thinks that validates_uniqueness_of should accept the
edition of the same record ?
Should I add an on create condition and validate the record “by hand”
on edition ?
Mickael.
You could try using something like validates_uniqueness_of :login,
:except => ‘update’
I think that’s the way it goes, that way it won’t validate on the update
action only on the login or what ever. Hope that helps.
~Jeremy
Jeremy:
Okay, if it’s the only solution, I will do the update validation by
hand. Thanks Jeremy.
I was hoping Rails was a little bit more “intelligent” and it would
detect that we are updating the same record, so it is OK to set the
same value as before.
Jemminger:
I don’t think a scope can help me there. I want to validates the
uniqueness of this field on the global scope.
Thanks anyway.
Mickael.
On Aug 17, 12:30 am, Jeremy W. <rails-mailing-l…@andreas-
I agree that it should be more intelligent. I would think that :except
=> ‘update’ would lead to inconsistencies unless you added a before
update filter that checked this on your own…I think a select count
where id != self.id and attrib = attrib would do it. I may be stating
the obvious here, but I was quite surprised myself to learn that it
behaves this way.
MickTaiwan wrote:
Thanks anyway.
edition of the same record ?
~Jeremy
–
Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
–
Sincerely,
William P.
http://www.billpratt.net
[email protected]
I played around with this a little, and I was mistaking yesterday. I am
seeing the correct behavior on updates with validates_uniqueness_of. If
the duplicate is in the record I am updating, the validation passes.
in my asset.rb model:
…
validates_uniqueness_of :asset_tag, :scope => :company_id
…
in irb:
a = Asset.find(:first)
…
a.asset_tag
=> “AS00003”
a.new_record?
=> nil
a.asset_tag = “AS00003”
=> “AS00003”
a.new_record?
=> nil
a.valid?
=> true
William P. wrote:
:except => ‘update’ would lead to inconsistencies unless you added a
I was hoping Rails was a little bit more “intelligent” and it would
[email protected]
–
Sincerely,
William P.
http://www.billpratt.net
[email protected]
–
Sincerely,
William P.
http://www.billpratt.net
[email protected]
According to the source, this problem should not happen:
547: unless record.new_record?
548: condition_sql << " AND
#{record.class.table_name}.#{record.class.primary_key} <> ?"
549: condition_params << record.send(:id)
550: end
I’ll dig in to it next week and see whats happening.
William P. wrote:
Okay, if it’s the only solution, I will do the update validation by
Mickael.
on edition ?
Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
http://www.billpratt.net
[email protected]
–
Sincerely,
William P.
http://www.billpratt.net
[email protected]
Thanks for the update.
I had implemented a solution “by hand”, with an :on=>:create and doing
the validation by hand on update.
After seeing the source you just sent, I reverted to the old (and to
me “normal”) way of doing it, and then it worked. I don’t know why it
failed earlier.
Sorry for the fuss, and again thank you for the work you’ve done.
Mickael.
On 8/18/07, William P. [email protected] wrote:
in irb:
a.valid?
549: condition_params << record.send(:id)
uniqueness of this field on the global scope.
I think that’s the way it goes, that way it won’t validate on the update
William P.
http://www.billpratt.net
[email protected]
–
Mickael.
Coding an AI ! http://faivrem.googlepages.com/antbattle