Minor inconsistency with docs and reality on associations page regarding :model / :class_name
Reported by Docunext | December 7th, 2009 @ 05:30 AM
http://datamapper.org/docs/associations.html
says:
belongs_to :author, :model => 'User', :child_key => [ :post_id ]
should be:
belongs_to :author, :class_name => 'User', :child_key => [ :post_id ]
More info here => http://www.ruby.code-experiments.com/blog/2009/12/datamapper-associ...
Thanks for DataMapper!
Comments and changes to this ticket
-
Docunext December 7th, 2009 @ 05:31 AM
- Title changed from “Minor inconsistency with docs and reality” to “Minor inconsistency with docs and reality on associations page regarding :model / :class_name”
-
Dan Kubb (dkubb) December 8th, 2009 @ 12:41 AM
- State changed from “new” to “not-applicable”
Actually, the :model option is the newer syntax. The :class_name option has been deprecated.
In fact the preferred approach is to not pass the model name via the options anymore, but rather as the 2nd optional argument to belongs_to, eg:
belongs_to :author, 'User', :child_key => [ :post_id ]The has() method can be passed the model name as the 3rd optional argument:
has n, :authors, 'Author', :child_key => [ :post_id ] -
MarkMT December 8th, 2009 @ 03:56 AM
Dan, why is that preferred? I think it makes the code harder to read.
Please Sign in or create a free account to add a new ticket.
With your very own profile, you can contribute to projects, track your activity, watch tickets, receive and update tickets through your email and much more.
Create new ticket
Create your profile
Help contribute to this project by taking a few moments to create your personal profile. Create your profile »
Dan Kubb (dkubb)
Docunext