Hi

I hope someone can help me with this

I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I've done to
validate that there's no evaluation with 2 question with the same
number is

validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope
=> :evaluation_id

but when I try to update a question's content I got an error message
that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken"
and that means that the validation works, but not as I want

Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this
- Question Model

IF ("def create" or something)
do the validation
elsif ("def update")
don't do it
end

I hope someone can help me

Thanks in advance

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Search Discussions

  • Colin Law at Nov 4, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    On 4 November 2011 15:40, JavierQQ wrote:
    Hi

    I hope someone can help me with this

    I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I've done to
    validate that there's no evaluation with 2 question with the same
    number is

    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope
    => :evaluation_id

    but when I try to update a question's content I got an error message
    that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken"
    and that means that the validation works, but not as I want

    Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this
    - Question Model

    IF ("def create" or something)
    do the validation
    elsif ("def update")
    don't do it
    end
    I don't know what you mean by "def" but if you want to do conditional
    validations have a look at the Rails Guide on validations and it will
    show you how.

    Colin

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • JavierQQ at Nov 4, 2011 at 4:06 pm
    What I mean by "def" is the basic CRUD that rails provide

    def create
    ....
    end

    def update
    ...
    end

    def new
    ...
    end

    I want that the data validates in 2 cases (create / update)
    because when I want to update , for example:

    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1

    If I update question 1 and change the content, and then I save
    it shows a error message that says "The number is being used" (and
    that shows that
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope works)
    I want that it only validates it when I'm CREATING a new one, not when
    I'm UPDATING

    How can I do that?
    On 4 nov, 10:55, Colin Law wrote:
    On 4 November 2011 15:40, JavierQQ wrote:








    Hi
    I hope someone can help me with this
    I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I've done to
    validate that there's no evaluation with 2 question with the same
    number is
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope
    => :evaluation_id
    but when I try to update a question's content I got an error message
    that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken"
    and that means that the validation works, but not as I want
    Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this
    - Question Model
    IF ("def create" or something)
    do the validation
    elsif ("def update")
    don't do it
    end
    I don't know what you mean by "def" but if you want to do conditional
    validations have a look at the Rails Guide on validations and it will
    show you how.

    Colin
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Colin Law at Nov 4, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    On 4 November 2011 16:05, JavierQQ wrote:
    I want that it only validates it when I'm CREATING a new one, not when
    I'm UPDATING

    How can I do that?
    That is not really a function of the controller action, it is just
    whether you are creating a record or updating an existing one. Did
    you read the guide as I suggested?

    Colin

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • JavierQQ at Nov 4, 2011 at 4:25 pm
    I'm doing it :)
    but I read in another place, that its not safe.. or not recommended to
    access a controller from a model
    is that true?

    Those def were created when I made rails g scaffold
    On 4 nov, 11:21, Colin Law wrote:
    On 4 November 2011 16:05, JavierQQ wrote:


    I want that it only validates it when I'm CREATING a new one, not when
    I'm UPDATING
    How can I do that?
    That is not really a function of the controller action, it is just
    whether you are creating a record or updating an existing one.  Did
    you read the guide as I suggested?

    Colin
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Colin Law at Nov 4, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    On 4 November 2011 16:25, JavierQQ wrote:
    I'm doing it :)
    but I read in another place, that its not safe.. or not recommended to
    access a controller from a model
    is that true?
    Please don't top post, it makes it difficult to follow the thread.
    Insert your reply at appropriate points in previous message. Thanks.

    As I said you do not need to access the controller. It is entirely
    within the model. The model knows whether it is being asked to create
    a new record or to update an existing one. Look at section 4.4 in the
    guide (:on)

    Colin
    Those def were created when I made rails g scaffold
    On 4 nov, 11:21, Colin Law wrote:
    On 4 November 2011 16:05, JavierQQ wrote:


    I want that it only validates it when I'm CREATING a new one, not when
    I'm UPDATING
    How can I do that?
    That is not really a function of the controller action, it is just
    whether you are creating a record or updating an existing one.  Did
    you read the guide as I suggested?

    Colin
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.


    --
    gplus.to/clanlaw

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 4, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Hi Colin. I asked about this before in this list. There are no preferences in this list, so that is where the list stands.

    As for top posting, that is an old school habit. Top posting is indeed effective for many people. This message can be clear with historical references down below. It isn't imperative as the text I am adding to this thread, which you are reading now. So, it is secondary to my reply. It IS included below, but it isn't necessary as this message is directed towards yourself. You know what you put before, and it's in your head. If your theory was correct, then every message would have to be quoted in every post. If not, then your email application should have some way of organizing individual messages in order for you to follow the long presentation. A problem with quoting and inserting intermixed is that it gets ugly. A problem with bottom posting is the need to scroll every message that comes into view.

    My point is that people have different preferences, and the bottom posting preference only belongs to some. Please don't expect everybody to follow your preference. It is not carved in stone, and can be managed in the preferences of most major email applications for that reason.


    On 2011-11-04, at 12:35 PM, Colin Law wrote:

    Please don't top post, it makes it difficult to follow the thread.
    Insert your reply at appropriate points in previous message. Thanks.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Craig White at Nov 4, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    On Nov 4, 2011, at 9:44 AM, BeeRich wrote:

    Hi Colin. I asked about this before in this list. There are no preferences in this list, so that is where the list stands.

    As for top posting, that is an old school habit. Top posting is indeed effective for many people. This message can be clear with historical references down below. It isn't imperative as the text I am adding to this thread, which you are reading now. So, it is secondary to my reply. It IS included below, but it isn't necessary as this message is directed towards yourself. You know what you put before, and it's in your head. If your theory was correct, then every message would have to be quoted in every post. If not, then your email application should have some way of organizing individual messages in order for you to follow the long presentation. A problem with quoting and inserting intermixed is that it gets ugly. A problem with bottom posting is the need to scroll every message that comes into view.

    My point is that people have different preferences, and the bottom posting preference only belongs to some. Please don't expect everybody to follow your preference. It is not carved in stone, and can be managed in the preferences of most major email applications for that reason.
    ----
    it seems pretty clear that the logical flow of top to bottom favors bottom posting for anything beyond a short reply that in essence terminates the discussion.

    While I am reasonably neutral on the topic myself - the issue really becomes one for those who are taking the time to reply and on a topic that has several replies, the top postings tend to confuse who said what/when. You should keep in mind that those who reply - especially those who are knowledgeable such as Frederick and Colin, I would want to do anything that makes it easy for them to engage/stay engaged but hey, that's just me.

    Craig

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 5, 2011 at 6:55 pm
    Actually, it doesn't. The topic is old and argued in very many places.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=top+posting+vs+bottom+posting

    Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone's preferences. That's it. It can be argued into the ground like it has in the past. Unless a list owner demands it, it's a topic that will never be solved.

    My preference is top posting because when I follow a thread, I don't have to start over every time I come back to the thread. While I don't really care myself, it's fine by me that people can post above or below. My mail application can segregate quotations just fine, and I don't have any problem getting past it. I don't even notice if it's top or bottom. I personally don't like having to scroll down several pages to see someone else say "ya I've experienced that result as well". It's a waste of time, and my right hand isn't getting any younger every time I use that wheel.


    On 2011-11-04, at 12:56 PM, Craig White wrote:

    it seems pretty clear that the logical flow of top to bottom favors bottom posting for anything beyond a short reply that in essence terminates the discussion.

    While I am reasonably neutral on the topic myself - the issue really becomes one for those who are taking the time to reply and on a topic that has several replies, the top postings tend to confuse who said what/when. You should keep in mind that those who reply - especially those who are knowledgeable such as Frederick and Colin, I would want to do anything that makes it easy for them to engage/stay engaged but hey, that's just me.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Colin Law at Nov 5, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich wrote:
    Actually, it doesn't.
    What doesn't what?
    [snip]
    Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone's preferences.
    Don't do it then, I wasn't arguing, just asking nicely.

    Colin
    That's it.  It can be argued into the ground like it has in the past.  Unless a list owner demands it, it's a topic that will never be solved.

    My preference is top posting because when I follow a thread, I don't have to start over every time I come back to the thread.  While I don't really care myself, it's fine by me that people can post above or below.  My mail application can segregate quotations just fine, and I don't have any problem getting past it.  I don't even notice if it's top or bottom.  I personally don't like having to scroll down several pages to see someone else say "ya I've experienced that result as well".  It's a waste of time, and my right hand isn't getting any younger every time I use that wheel.


    On 2011-11-04, at 12:56 PM, Craig White wrote:

    it seems pretty clear that the logical flow of top to bottom favors bottom posting for anything beyond a short reply that in essence terminates the discussion.

    While I am reasonably neutral on the topic myself - the issue really becomes one for those who are taking the time to reply and on a topic that has several replies, the top postings tend to confuse who said what/when. You should keep in mind that those who reply - especially those who are knowledgeable such as Frederick and Colin, I would want to do anything that makes it easy for them to engage/stay engaged but hey, that's just me.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.


    --
    gplus.to/clanlaw

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 5, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich wrote:
    Actually, it doesn't.
    What doesn't what?
    See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom. It was referencing what was quoted down below. Many people don't like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing.
    [snip]
    Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone's preferences.
    Don't do it then, I wasn't arguing, just asking nicely.
    People discussing something where contrary opinions are at hand, are in somewhat of a debate. Presentations in such a debate are indeed arguments, and are not meant to convey angry diatribe. That's what I meant.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Nov 5, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    On 5 November 2011 21:54, BeeRich wrote:
    On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich wrote:
    Actually, it doesn't.
    What doesn't what?
    See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom.  It was referencing what was quoted down below.
    I'm sure you're trying to be interestingly ironic, but you're shooting
    yourself in the foot a little. Yes, of course, it may be "preference"
    to "quote" from references at the bottom; but normally in this
    instance, it's common to put some form of indicator to the footnote
    (such as a number in square-brackets, matched to another at the
    reference). Just writing at the top and saying that everything you
    write is referencing everything at the bottom is rather glib.
    Many people don't like this format of interspersing.  They find it highly confusing.
    Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I'm not
    going to stop encouraging them to get better at it...


    On 5 November 2011 21:58, BeeRich wrote:

    Because you interspersed this one, it really was *much* easier to follow ;-)

    Unless a list owner demands it, it's a topic that will never be solved.
    Unless one realises that it's not "preference" it's "ignorance".
    Because you say so?  Again, check the intensity of the google's hitlist I sent before.
    No, it just *is* ignorance, whether I say so out loud or sit quietly
    in the wings. Lots of preferences are born out of ignorance; sure,
    lots of people get very heated about this one, but if you cancel the
    noise on all sides, top/bottom posted replies of any length cause
    confusion, while interspersed replies offer an opportunity of
    discussing like a "normal" conversation (yet may well still give rise
    to some confusion on occasion).

    Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I'll choose the lesser.
    Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization?
    As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails?
    Honestly, I think this is a dead topic.
    It's certainly kicking strongly.
    I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much.
    But again; this is contradictory, because you're asking people *not*
    to ask other people not to top post? (eek... triple-negative - never
    good ;-)


    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

    night all.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 5, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    On 2011-11-05, at 6:18 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 21:54, BeeRich wrote:
    On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich wrote:
    Actually, it doesn't.
    What doesn't what?
    See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom. It was referencing what was quoted down below.
    I'm sure you're trying to be interestingly ironic, but you're shooting
    yourself in the foot a little. Yes, of course, it may be "preference"
    to "quote" from references at the bottom; but normally in this
    instance, it's common to put some form of indicator to the footnote
    (such as a number in square-brackets, matched to another at the
    reference). Just writing at the top and saying that everything you
    write is referencing everything at the bottom is rather glib.
    Well, you're just wrong then. I'm not trying to be ironic at all. I actually don't like hipsters.

    And I disagree. I'm responding to what I am quoting. Hopefully what's quotes is what the current reply is commenting about. That's why one would quote something, as a reference. If not, why would it be quoted at all?
    Many people don't like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing.
    Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I'm not
    going to stop encouraging them to get better at it…
    Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them.
    On 5 November 2011 21:58, BeeRich wrote:

    Because you interspersed this one, it really was *much* easier to follow ;-)
    For you. Some people don't find it easier. :-P
    Unless a list owner demands it, it's a topic that will never be solved.
    Unless one realises that it's not "preference" it's "ignorance".
    Because you say so? Again, check the intensity of the google's hitlist I sent before.
    No, it just *is* ignorance, whether I say so out loud or sit quietly
    in the wings. Lots of preferences are born out of ignorance; sure,
    lots of people get very heated about this one, but if you cancel the
    noise on all sides, top/bottom posted replies of any length cause
    confusion, while interspersed replies offer an opportunity of
    discussing like a "normal" conversation (yet may well still give rise
    to some confusion on occasion).
    See, it isn't about you. It's not ignorance because you say so. There's plenty of evidence that people argue about this well before you. And while I can appreciate your presentation of logic, it isn't the only way out there, and those alternatives are indeed brought up in other people's logic.
    Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I'll choose the lesser.
    For your expectations, sure. I don't mind it. THAT is my point.
    Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization?
    As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails?
    So now it's a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email?
    Honestly, I think this is a dead topic.
    It's certainly kicking strongly.
    It's dead because everybody expects everybody else to wrap around their own needs.
    I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much.
    But again; this is contradictory, because you're asking people *not*
    to ask other people not to top post? (eek... triple-negative - never
    good ;-)
    No, I'm saying don't bitch when people do things their way. Please, with all the ways this thread has been quoted and formatted, you still haven't read what I have put. I'm continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don't get it. Would you like a different font? Want me to explain it yet again? If anything, you're demonstrating that in any way shape or form, you still won't get it, and formatting has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a thread or a point.

    What would be ultimately respectful to people is if they read the posts instead of expecting others to format properly.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Nov 5, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    On 5 November 2011 22:47, BeeRich wrote:
    Many people don't like this format of interspersing.  They find it highly confusing.
    Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I'm not
    going to stop encouraging them to get better at it…
    Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them.
    I don't understand what you're saying here.
    See, it isn't about you.  It's not ignorance because you say so.
    Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I'll choose the lesser.
    For your expectations, sure.  I don't mind it.  THAT is my point.
    I'm talking about the confusion upon *all* readers totalled together -
    not just the confusion of an individual reader.
    When lots of people read and reply with top or bottom posted email,
    there's lots of confusion. When another lot read and reply with
    interleaving, there's generally less confusion.
    Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization?
    As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails?
    So now it's a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email?
    I'm suggesting that the developers add the functionality of thread
    organisation to attempt to compensate for the situation that has
    resulted from people not being able to compose messages nicely.
    I'm not implying that it's the developers' *fault* there's top-posting
    (unless they're the developers of Outlook ;-)
    I'm saying don't bitch when people do things their way... I'm continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don't get it.
    And you don't seem to have "got it" either. No-one has "bitched". It
    was suggested to a poster not to top-post, because the people (or at
    least a large portion of them) that are attempting to help would find
    it easier to help if their messages were composed differently.

    So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their
    "preference", they're being deliberately ignorant of the simple
    requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little
    courtesy goes a long way.
    Would you like a different font?  Want me to explain it yet again?
    Now, now. It's all been very civil so far. If you want to veer toward
    snide, I'll abstain.
    What would be ultimately respectful to people is if they read the posts instead of expecting others to format properly.
    So you agree... they're not formatting "properly" ATM? ;-)

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 5, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    On 2011-11-05, at 7:07 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:


    Many people don't like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing.
    Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I'm not
    going to stop encouraging them to get better at it…
    Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them.
    I don't understand what you're saying here.
    Three types of ways you can format a reply.

    - top posting
    - bottom posting
    - interspersed

    Having expectations of everybody else conforming to what you prefer, is going to shut down people's participation.
    See, it isn't about you. It's not ignorance because you say so.
    Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I'll choose the lesser.
    For your expectations, sure. I don't mind it. THAT is my point.
    I'm talking about the confusion upon *all* readers totalled together -
    not just the confusion of an individual reader.
    When lots of people read and reply with top or bottom posted email,
    there's lots of confusion. When another lot read and reply with
    interleaving, there's generally less confusion.
    But that's the situation. You can only assume that with a list where there is nothing formally posted to instruct people, and with a population in a list that's healthy, that there are all three types of posters around.

    Interleaving makes sense to you. Other people say top posting makes sense. Other people say bottom posting makes sense. Arguments all around. That's why it's a dead topic, because there is never a winner.
    Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization?
    As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails?
    So now it's a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email?
    I'm suggesting that the developers add the functionality of thread
    organisation to attempt to compensate for the situation that has
    resulted from people not being able to compose messages nicely.
    I'm not implying that it's the developers' *fault* there's top-posting
    (unless they're the developers of Outlook ;-)
    You just insist that your preference is right.
    I'm saying don't bitch when people do things their way... I'm continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don't get it.
    And you don't seem to have "got it" either. No-one has "bitched". It
    was suggested to a poster not to top-post, because the people (or at
    least a large portion of them) that are attempting to help would find
    it easier to help if their messages were composed differently.
    And the response is that other people prefer other ways because they find it easier. Have you considered that?
    So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their
    "preference", they're being deliberately ignorant of the simple
    requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little
    courtesy goes a long way.=
    …and then you continue to call them ignorant, because they don't agree with you. And you wonder why topics never progress.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Nov 5, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    On 5 November 2011 23:24, BeeRich wrote:
    On 2011-11-05, at 7:07 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:
    Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I'm not
    going to stop encouraging them to get better at it…
    Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them.
    I don't understand what you're saying here.
    Having expectations of everybody else conforming to what you prefer, is going to shut down people's participation.
    Yes, but I specifically don't understand how "Which is along the same
    lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you
    want them" has any relation to with me saying that I'm not going to
    stop helping people improve their coding where possible.
    Don't worry though - it's probably not worth the distraction (unless
    it was very important, in which case, please do clarify)
    But that's the situation.  You can only assume that with a list where there is nothing formally posted to instruct people, and with a population in a list that's healthy, that there are all three types of posters around.
    I "assume" based on reading all the threads (and I read 'em all...),
    and seeing the amount and quality of people who post in different
    ways. Most of the requests are poorly written, most of the best
    assistance is well written.
    Interleaving makes sense to you.  Other people say top posting makes sense.
    Yes... people say all sorts of cr@p about all sorts of stuff. But not
    everyone's opinion is worth the same. Look at the quality of posts
    from people, and judge their "opinions" by that.
    You just insist that your preference is right.
    urm... no. I insist that the right way is what I prefer ;-)
    And the response is that other people prefer other ways because they find it easier.  Have you considered that?
    I don't need to consider it - no-one has ever posted a response to a
    reply here saying "please don't interleave your response, it's too
    easy to see what line you're responding to". Why spend time
    considering something which has never happened?

    The only "easy" that top or bottom-posting-without-any-trimming is is
    easy for the sender - because it's quick and lazy.
    So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their
    "preference", they're being deliberately ignorant of the simple
    requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little
    courtesy goes a long way.=
    …and then you continue to call them ignorant, because they don't agree with you.  And you wonder why topics never progress.
    I'm calling their behaviour ignorant, and I've said they're
    demonstrating ignorance - we can certainly all behave ignorantly from
    time-to-time.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 5, 2011 at 11:54 pm
    It's a good thing there's beer in the World.

    On 2011-11-05, at 7:48 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:


    You just insist that your preference is right.
    urm... no. I insist that the right way is what I prefer ;-)
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Nov 5, 2011 at 11:09 pm
    I don't understand what you're saying here.
    I'm talking about the confusion upon *all* readers totalled together -
    not just the confusion of an individual reader.
    When lots of people read and reply with top or bottom posted email,
    there's lots of confusion. When another lot read and reply with
    interleaving, there's generally less confusion. I'm suggesting that
    the developers add the functionality of thread organisation to attempt
    to compensate for the situation that has resulted from people not
    being able to compose messages nicely.
    I'm not implying that it's the developers' *fault* there's top-posting
    (unless they're the developers of Outlook ;-)And you don't seem to
    have "got it" either. No-one has "bitched". It was suggested to a
    poster not to top-post, because the people (or at least a large
    portion of them) that are attempting to help would find it easier to
    help if their messages were composed differently.
    So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their
    "preference", they're being deliberately ignorant of the simple
    requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little
    courtesy goes a long way.
    Now, now. It's all been very civil so far. If you want to veer toward
    snide, I'll abstain.
    So you agree... they're not formatting "properly" ATM? ;-)

    (re-posted as a top-post as an experiment on the clarity of the format...)
    On 5 November 2011 22:47, BeeRich wrote:
    On 2011-11-05, at 6:18 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 21:54, BeeRich wrote:
    On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich wrote:
    Actually, it doesn't.
    What doesn't what?
    See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom.  It was referencing what was quoted down below.
    I'm sure you're trying to be interestingly ironic, but you're shooting
    yourself in the foot a little. Yes, of course, it may be "preference"
    to "quote" from references at the bottom; but normally in this
    instance, it's common to put some form of indicator to the footnote
    (such as a number in square-brackets, matched to another at the
    reference). Just writing at the top and saying that everything you
    write is referencing everything at the bottom is rather glib.
    Well, you're just wrong then.  I'm not trying to be ironic at all.  I actually don't like hipsters.

    And I disagree.  I'm responding to what I am quoting.  Hopefully what's quotes is what the current reply is commenting about.  That's why one would quote something, as a reference.  If not, why would it be quoted at all?
    Many people don't like this format of interspersing.  They find it highly confusing.
    Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I'm not
    going to stop encouraging them to get better at it…
    Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them.
    On 5 November 2011 21:58, BeeRich wrote:

    Because you interspersed this one, it really was *much* easier to follow ;-)
    For you.  Some people don't find it easier.  :-P
    Unless a list owner demands it, it's a topic that will never be solved.
    Unless one realises that it's not "preference" it's "ignorance".
    Because you say so?  Again, check the intensity of the google's hitlist I sent before.
    No, it just *is* ignorance, whether I say so out loud or sit quietly
    in the wings. Lots of preferences are born out of ignorance; sure,
    lots of people get very heated about this one, but if you cancel the
    noise on all sides, top/bottom posted replies of any length cause
    confusion, while interspersed replies offer an opportunity of
    discussing like a "normal" conversation (yet may well still give rise
    to some confusion on occasion).
    See, it isn't about you.  It's not ignorance because you say so.  There's plenty of evidence that people argue about this well before you.  And while I can appreciate your presentation of logic, it isn't the only way out there, and those alternatives are indeed brought up in other people's logic.
    Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I'll choose the lesser.
    For your expectations, sure.  I don't mind it.  THAT is my point.
    Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization?
    As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails?
    So now it's a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email?
    Honestly, I think this is a dead topic.
    It's certainly kicking strongly.
    It's dead because everybody expects everybody else to wrap around their own needs.
    I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much.
    But again; this is contradictory, because you're asking people *not*
    to ask other people not to top post? (eek... triple-negative - never
    good ;-)
    No, I'm saying don't bitch when people do things their way.  Please, with all the ways this thread has been quoted and formatted, you still haven't read what I have put.  I'm continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don't get it.  Would you like a different font?  Want me to explain it yet again?  If anything, you're demonstrating that in any way shape or form, you still won't get it, and formatting has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a thread or a point.

    What would be ultimately respectful to people is if they read the posts instead of expecting others to format properly.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 5, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    On 2011-11-05, at 7:09 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:

    I don't understand what you're saying here.
    I'm talking about the confusion upon *all* readers totalled together -
    not just the confusion of an individual reader.
    When lots of people read and reply with top or bottom posted email,
    there's lots of confusion. When another lot read and reply with
    interleaving, there's generally less confusion. I'm suggesting that
    the developers add the functionality of thread organisation to attempt
    to compensate for the situation that has resulted from people not
    being able to compose messages nicely.
    I'm not implying that it's the developers' *fault* there's top-posting
    (unless they're the developers of Outlook ;-)And you don't seem to
    have "got it" either. No-one has "bitched". It was suggested to a
    poster not to top-post, because the people (or at least a large
    portion of them) that are attempting to help would find it easier to
    help if their messages were composed differently.
    So in this event, if the poster continues to abide by their
    "preference", they're being deliberately ignorant of the simple
    requests of the people that are most likely to help them. A little
    courtesy goes a long way.
    Now, now. It's all been very civil so far. If you want to veer toward
    snide, I'll abstain.
    So you agree... they're not formatting "properly" ATM? ;-)

    (re-posted as a top-post as an experiment on the clarity of the format...)
    On 5 November 2011 22:47, BeeRich wrote:
    On 2011-11-05, at 6:18 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 21:54, BeeRich wrote:
    On 2011-11-05, at 5:08 PM, Colin Law wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich wrote:
    Actually, it doesn't.
    What doesn't what?
    See, you failed to read the quotation on the bottom. It was referencing what was quoted down below.
    I'm sure you're trying to be interestingly ironic, but you're shooting
    yourself in the foot a little. Yes, of course, it may be "preference"
    to "quote" from references at the bottom; but normally in this
    instance, it's common to put some form of indicator to the footnote
    (such as a number in square-brackets, matched to another at the
    reference). Just writing at the top and saying that everything you
    write is referencing everything at the bottom is rather glib.
    Well, you're just wrong then. I'm not trying to be ironic at all. I actually don't like hipsters.

    And I disagree. I'm responding to what I am quoting. Hopefully what's quotes is what the current reply is commenting about. That's why one would quote something, as a reference. If not, why would it be quoted at all?
    Many people don't like this format of interspersing. They find it highly confusing.
    Many people find computer programming highly confusing... I'm not
    going to stop encouraging them to get better at it…
    Which is along the same lines as not expecting people to have people format emails the way you want them.
    On 5 November 2011 21:58, BeeRich wrote:

    Because you interspersed this one, it really was *much* easier to follow ;-)
    For you. Some people don't find it easier. :-P
    Unless a list owner demands it, it's a topic that will never be solved.
    Unless one realises that it's not "preference" it's "ignorance".
    Because you say so? Again, check the intensity of the google's hitlist I sent before.
    No, it just *is* ignorance, whether I say so out loud or sit quietly
    in the wings. Lots of preferences are born out of ignorance; sure,
    lots of people get very heated about this one, but if you cancel the
    noise on all sides, top/bottom posted replies of any length cause
    confusion, while interspersed replies offer an opportunity of
    discussing like a "normal" conversation (yet may well still give rise
    to some confusion on occasion).
    See, it isn't about you. It's not ignorance because you say so. There's plenty of evidence that people argue about this well before you. And while I can appreciate your presentation of logic, it isn't the only way out there, and those alternatives are indeed brought up in other people's logic.
    Given the choice of loads of confusion, or little; I'll choose the lesser.
    For your expectations, sure. I don't mind it. THAT is my point.
    Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization?
    As an attempt by developers to make up for poorly composed emails?
    So now it's a developers issue, and other people who simply do not know how to use email?
    Honestly, I think this is a dead topic.
    It's certainly kicking strongly.
    It's dead because everybody expects everybody else to wrap around their own needs.
    I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much.
    But again; this is contradictory, because you're asking people *not*
    to ask other people not to top post? (eek... triple-negative - never
    good ;-)
    No, I'm saying don't bitch when people do things their way. Please, with all the ways this thread has been quoted and formatted, you still haven't read what I have put. I'm continuing to repeat myself here, and you still don't get it. Would you like a different font? Want me to explain it yet again? If anything, you're demonstrating that in any way shape or form, you still won't get it, and formatting has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a thread or a point.

    What would be ultimately respectful to people is if they read the posts instead of expecting others to format properly.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

    And a reply to demonstrate how stupid a bottom post can look.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Nov 5, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    On 5 November 2011 23:24, BeeRich wrote:
    And a reply to demonstrate how stupid a bottom post can look.
    yes... I've agreed with that already...

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 5, 2011 at 11:36 pm
    Hehe, interspersed can get rather lengthy as well.

    My preferences are top-posting and interspersed. I don't mind editing a good topic.

    On 2011-11-05, at 7:26 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:

    And a reply to demonstrate how stupid a bottom post can look.
    yes... I've agreed with that already...
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Dave Aronson at Nov 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm
    I reiterate: if you change the subject, change the Subject!

    In case my subtlety is lost on you, lemme 'splain: if you start
    writing about something other than what the conversation was
    originally about, take a few seconds to change the Subject line of the
    message. (Or if you're writing directly on a web forum, it may be
    called the Title, or Re, or something else, but still you probably
    understand what I mean.)

    Because certain people didn't do that (even though *I did* and thereby
    created a perfectly good thread in which to sidetrack the nonsense),
    we've now got all this repetitive dead-horse-beating about
    top/bottom/interspersed posting, polluting the thread in which
    JavierQQ was actually trying to get some help, and *some* of us were
    actually trying to help him. Making him, and the rest of us, wade
    through it (if at this point anybody but the post-order zealots is
    still reading this), is even MORE anti-productive, than whatever
    posting-placement you might think is most wrong.

    Think of it like a poorly named variable, method, or class. We see
    the subject line (go take a moment to look at it!), and expect it to
    be something about RoR validations, models, and controller defs,
    whatever those are. But instead we find the same old crap people have
    been arguing about for literally decades, about top posting. Like if
    Rails gives you a stack trace that says that you have an error in your
    method Category::rename_to_standard, and you find it has nothing to do
    with categories, naming, or standards, but does something utterly
    unrelated like maybe calculating a ballistic trajectory (and the whole
    application had nothing to do with ballistics), as part of an
    Easter-egg game that some overly clever but underly supervised bored
    programmer decided to stick into some gem you're using.

    Yes I know that by posting this message I am contributing to said
    noise -- but as my high school calculus teacher said, sometime you've
    got to make something uglier before you can make it pretty.

    NOW GET IT THE FSCK OUT OF HERE! :-P

    -Dave

    --
    LOOKING FOR WORK! What: Ruby (on/off Rails), Python, other modern languages.
    Where: Northern Virginia, Washington DC (near Orange Line), and remote work.
    See: davearonson.com (main) * codosaur.us (code) * dare2xl.com (excellence).
    Specialization is for insects. (Heinlein) - Have Pun, Will Babble! (Aronson)

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Colin Law at Nov 6, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    On 6 November 2011 16:24, Dave Aronson wrote:
    I reiterate: if you change the subject, change the Subject!
    +1
    Since you have not quoted anyone we don't know who you are referring
    to, but I assume it is BeeRich since it was he that changed the
    subject.

    Though I can't see where you iterated this in the first place in order
    to re-iterate it now.

    Colin

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Craig White at Nov 6, 2011 at 1:29 am

    On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 21:08 +0000, Colin Law wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich wrote:
    Actually, it doesn't.
    What doesn't what?
    ----
    he was actually proving the point of why top posting is a problem while
    trying to argue the opposite. He was answering my point which was
    sandwiched down below.

    Some people will never get it - probably because they don't want to.

    Craig


    --
    This message has been scanned for viruses and
    dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
    believed to be clean.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 6, 2011 at 1:31 am
    Read the thread.
    On 2011-11-05, at 9:27 PM, Craig White wrote:

    he was actually proving the point of why top posting is a problem while
    trying to argue the opposite. He was answering my point which was
    sandwiched down below.

    Some people will never get it - probably because they don't want to.
    Read the thread.
    Craig

    Read the thread.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Colin Law at Nov 6, 2011 at 10:06 am

    On 6 November 2011 01:27, Craig White wrote:
    On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 21:08 +0000, Colin Law wrote:
    On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich wrote:
    Actually, it doesn't.
    What doesn't what?
    ----
    he was actually proving the point of why top posting is a problem while
    trying to argue the opposite. He was answering my point which was
    sandwiched down below.
    I think perhaps I was being too subtle :)
    I will find a larger sledgehammer next time.

    Colin

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Michael Pavling at Nov 5, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    On 5 November 2011 18:55, BeeRich wrote:
    Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone's preferences.  That's it.  It can be argued into the ground like it has in the past.  Unless a list owner demands it, it's a topic that will never be solved.
    Unless one realises that it's not "preference" it's "ignorance".
    My preference is top posting because when I follow a thread, I don't have to start over every time I come back to the thread.
    You say in another post that you can't be expected to recall
    everyone's personal preference for type of reply, yet you seem to
    imply here that you have no problem remembering all the contents of
    every post in every thread you follow.
    I personally don't like having to scroll down several pages to see someone else say "ya I've experienced that result as well".  It's a waste of time, and my right hand isn't getting any younger every time I use that wheel.
    Absolutely - those who "bottom post" without snipping are just as
    ignorant than those that top-post. Neither group is taking any effort
    to contribute to a conversation, they're just blurting out their
    thoughts in one paragraph, and slapping 'send'.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 5, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    On 2011-11-05, at 5:22 PM, Michael Pavling wrote:

    Arguing how people should post online is futile and simply an expression of someone's preferences. That's it. It can be argued into the ground like it has in the past. Unless a list owner demands it, it's a topic that will never be solved.
    Unless one realises that it's not "preference" it's "ignorance".
    Because you say so? Again, check the intensity of the google's hitlist I sent before.
    My preference is top posting because when I follow a thread, I don't have to start over every time I come back to the thread.
    You say in another post that you can't be expected to recall
    everyone's personal preference for type of reply, yet you seem to
    imply here that you have no problem remembering all the contents of
    every post in every thread you follow.
    If it's a quick thread, then yes indeed, I do remember the last several comments. Second, like I have said, I regularly quote below and top post. Keeping the thread as well is expected. Why do you think email applications have things like thread organization?
    I personally don't like having to scroll down several pages to see someone else say "ya I've experienced that result as well". It's a waste of time, and my right hand isn't getting any younger every time I use that wheel.
    Absolutely - those who "bottom post" without snipping are just as
    ignorant than those that top-post. Neither group is taking any effort
    to contribute to a conversation, they're just blurting out their
    thoughts in one paragraph, and slapping 'send'.
    Honestly, I think this is a dead topic. It's never going to go away. I just wanted to say that asking people to post a certain way is a bit much.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • JavierQQ at Nov 4, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    I'm sorry if I'm doing something wrong,
    I'm new in this group and I don't want to bother anyone,
    I'm just hitting the reply button and that's all.

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Colin Law at Nov 4, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    On 4 November 2011 16:57, JavierQQ wrote:
    I'm sorry if I'm doing something wrong,
    I'm new in this group and I don't want to bother anyone,
    I'm just hitting the reply button and that's all.
    Many users, particularly on technical lists, prefer that a reply is
    inserted at appropriate points into the previous message, so that the
    full post reads like a question and answer sequence. This requires
    you to hit reply then scroll through the previous message inserting
    bits of text at the appropriate points. Whilst doing this you may
    remove any redundant bits of the previous message. It is not a rule
    (at least on this list) but many prefer it that way.

    Colin

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Colin Law at Nov 4, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    On 4 November 2011 16:44, BeeRich wrote:

    [snip]
    My point is that people have different preferences, and the bottom posting preference only belongs to some.  Please don't expect everybody to follow your preference.  It is not carved in stone, and can be managed in the preferences of most major email applications for that reason.
    I don't expect everybody to follow my preferences, but if I am
    spending my time helping someone then I feel at liberty to ask them to
    post in a manner that makes it easier for me to follow what is going
    on.

    Colin

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • BeeRich at Nov 5, 2011 at 6:57 pm
    OK…but then you would also expect other people to expect you to keep a log of how people's preferences should be, with you responding accordingly? That's unreasonable.

    On 2011-11-04, at 1:09 PM, Colin Law wrote:

    I don't expect everybody to follow my preferences, but if I am
    spending my time helping someone then I feel at liberty to ask them to
    post in a manner that makes it easier for me to follow what is going
    on.
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Frederick Cheung at Nov 4, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    On Nov 4, 4:05 pm, JavierQQ wrote:
    I want that the data validates in 2 cases (create / update)
    because when I want to update , for example:

    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1

    If I update question 1 and change the content, and then I save
    it shows a error message that says "The number is being used" (and
    that shows that
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope  works)
    I want that it only validates it when I'm CREATING a new one, not when
    I'm UPDATING
    validations are fundamentally ignorant of what it is that has caused
    save to be called (i.e. it doesn't know what action, controller etc.
    There might not even be a controller if the code was being run from a
    background task).

    The validation methods do take an on option (:on => :create or :on
    => :update) but you should understand that this refers to whether
    active record is create or updating an object and has nothing to do
    with what controller action was involved.

    However, validates_uniqueness_of should already be adding a condition
    to the query so that when updating an existing object it doesn't find
    itself, so I'm not sure why you're running into this

    Fred
    How can I do that?

    On 4 nov, 10:55, Colin Law wrote:






    On 4 November 2011 15:40, JavierQQ wrote:

    Hi
    I hope someone can help me with this
    I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I've done to
    validate that there's no evaluation with 2 question with the same
    number is
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope
    => :evaluation_id
    but when I try to update a question's content I got an error message
    that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken"
    and that means that the validation works, but not as I want
    Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this
    - Question Model
    IF ("def create" or something)
    do the validation
    elsif ("def update")
    don't do it
    end
    I don't know what you mean by "def" but if you want to do conditional
    validations have a look at the Rails Guide on validations and it will
    show you how.
    Colin
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • JavierQQ at Nov 4, 2011 at 4:58 pm
    Because as an example
    I have
    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1
    - Question 2

    If I edit question 2 and change the number it will allow me to do that
    and it will show this
    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1
    - Question 1

    And that's what I want to avoid

    I tried validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope
    => :evaluation_id, :on => :create
    and it works, but when I edit, I can do what I mention
    On 4 nov, 11:42, Frederick Cheung wrote:
    On Nov 4, 4:05 pm, JavierQQ wrote:


    I want that the data validates in 2 cases (create / update)
    because when I want to update , for example:
    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1
    If I update question 1 and change the content, and then I save
    it shows a error message that says "The number is being used" (and
    that shows that
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope  works)
    I want that it only validates it when I'm CREATING a new one, not when
    I'm UPDATING
    validations are fundamentally ignorant of what it is that has caused
    save to be called (i.e. it doesn't know what action, controller etc.
    There might not even be a controller if the code was being run from a
    background task).

    The validation methods do take an on option (:on => :create or :on
    => :update) but you should understand that this refers to whether
    active record is create or updating an object and has nothing to do
    with what controller action was involved.

    However, validates_uniqueness_of should already be adding a condition
    to the query so that when updating an existing object it doesn't find
    itself, so I'm not sure why you're running into this

    Fred






    How can I do that?
    On 4 nov, 10:55, Colin Law wrote:
    On 4 November 2011 15:40, JavierQQ wrote:

    Hi
    I hope someone can help me with this
    I have a model Question, and its controller .. what I've done to
    validate that there's no evaluation with 2 question with the same
    number is
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope
    => :evaluation_id
    but when I try to update a question's content I got an error message
    that says that "#{qnumber} has already been taken"
    and that means that the validation works, but not as I want
    Can I obtain wich "def" is using ? because I want to do this
    - Question Model
    IF ("def create" or something)
    do the validation
    elsif ("def update")
    don't do it
    end
    I don't know what you mean by "def" but if you want to do conditional
    validations have a look at the Rails Guide on validations and it will
    show you how.
    Colin
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Craig White at Nov 4, 2011 at 5:12 pm
    re-ordering for top -> bottom
    On Nov 4, 2011, at 9:55 AM, JavierQQ wrote:
    On 4 nov, 11:42, Frederick Cheung wrote:
    On Nov 4, 4:05 pm, JavierQQ wrote:


    I want that the data validates in 2 cases (create / update)
    because when I want to update , for example:
    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1
    If I update question 1 and change the content, and then I save
    it shows a error message that says "The number is being used" (and
    that shows that
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope works)
    I want that it only validates it when I'm CREATING a new one, not when
    I'm UPDATING
    validations are fundamentally ignorant of what it is that has caused
    save to be called (i.e. it doesn't know what action, controller etc.
    There might not even be a controller if the code was being run from a
    background task).

    The validation methods do take an on option (:on => :create or :on
    => :update) but you should understand that this refers to whether
    active record is create or updating an object and has nothing to do
    with what controller action was involved.

    However, validates_uniqueness_of should already be adding a condition
    to the query so that when updating an existing object it doesn't find
    itself, so I'm not sure why you're running into this
    Because as an example
    I have
    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1
    - Question 2

    If I edit question 2 and change the number it will allow me to do that
    and it will show this
    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1
    - Question 1

    And that's what I want to avoid

    I tried validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope
    => :evaluation_id, :on => :create
    and it works, but when I edit, I can do what I mention
    ----
    what is the field/column that is 'Question 1'? Is it one of the fields that you only validate on 'create'? You should probably remove ', :on => :create' because that won't protect uniqueness on 'update'

    Craig

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • JavierQQ at Nov 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    On 4 nov, 12:11, Craig White wrote:

    Because as an example
    I have
    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1
    - Question 2
    If I edit question 2 and change the number it will allow me to do that
    and it will show this
    Evaluation 1
    - Question 1
    - Question 1
    And that's what I want to avoid
    I tried  validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope
    => :evaluation_id, :on => :create
    and it works, but when I edit, I can do what I mention
    ----
    what is the field/column that is 'Question 1'?  Is it one of the fields that you only validate on 'create'? You should probably remove ', :on => :create' because that won't protect uniqueness on 'update'
    I'm showing evaluation as it shows on my view

    EVALUATION

    Question Content Created by
    Number

    1 (..........)
    (..........) Edit
    2 (..........)
    (..........) Edit
    3 (..........)
    (..........) Edit

    In my form question

    Question number (_______________________________)
    Content (_______________________________)
    Created by (_______________________________)

    Save

    And for example what If I edit "3" and I change it to "2", it
    shouldn't let someone do that

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Craig White at Nov 4, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    On Nov 4, 2011, at 10:20 AM, JavierQQ wrote:

    still not entirely clear but I would think that you need to change...
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id, :on => :create
    to this...

    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber

    --
    Craig White ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ craig.white@ttiltd.com
    1.800.869.6908 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.ttiassessments.com

    Need help communicating between generations at work to achieve your desired success? Let us help!

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • JavierQQ at Nov 4, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    On 4 nov, 12:31, Craig White wrote:
    On Nov 4, 2011, at 10:20 AM, JavierQQ wrote:

    still not entirely clear but I would think that you need to change...
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id, :on => :create
    to this...

    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber
    I'm doing that because I can create several evaluations and each
    evaluation has an id, that's why I'm scoping by evaluation_id
    I found in section 15 of the validation guide, something about
    Proc.new
    What I want to do with update is that when I hit save it first search
    if the number exists(with a where() I guess), if exist it shouldn't
    allow me to update
    if not, it will let me update the question
    Do you suggest to use Proc.new?

    Thanks

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Colin Law at Nov 4, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    On 4 November 2011 17:46, JavierQQ wrote:
    On 4 nov, 12:31, Craig White wrote:
    On Nov 4, 2011, at 10:20 AM, JavierQQ wrote:

    still not entirely clear but I would think that you need to change...
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id, :on => :create
    to this...

    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber
    I'm doing that because I can create several evaluations and each
    evaluation has an id, that's why I'm scoping by evaluation_id
    I found in section 15 of the validation guide, something about
    Proc.new
    What I want to do with update is that when I hit save it first search
    if the number exists(with a where() I guess), if exist it shouldn't
    allow me to update
    if not, it will let me update the question
    You are still being too vague about your requirement, for me anyway.
    Can you write the validation test as pseudo code, being absolutely
    clear about each reference there? Ignore everything about the meaning
    of the database fields and just write the validation requirement in
    terms of data in the database and the new data about to be saved,
    referencing just database fields.

    Colin

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Dave Aronson at Nov 4, 2011 at 9:11 pm
    On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 16:27, Colin Law wrote
    to JavierQQ <jquarites@gmail.com>:
    You are still being too vague about your requirement, for me anyway.
    I think I grok what he wants and can express it briefly: the
    *combination* of evaluation_id and qnumber, must be unique.

    If that's right, then the Rails Guide on validation (and callbacks)
    has a close example:

    validates :name, :uniqueness => { :scope => :year,
    :message => "should happen once per year" }

    but the OP says that:

    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id

    isn't working, and IIUC should be equivalent to

    validates :qnumber, :uniqueness => { :scope => :evaluation_id }

    Just in case I don't UC:

    JavierQQ, try this:

    validates :qnumber, :uniqueness => { :scope => :evaluation_id,
    :message => "must be unique within each evaluation" }

    in the model, and let us know what happens. Don't worry about what
    controller it's going through to get there.

    -Dave

    PS: As for top vs. bottom posting, another point of list etiquette
    that some people have been violating is that if you change the
    subject, change the Subject. :-P

    --
    LOOKING FOR WORK! What: Ruby (on/off Rails), Python, other modern languages.
    Where: Northern Virginia, Washington DC (near Orange Line), and remote work.
    See: davearonson.com (main) * codosaur.us (code) * dare2xl.com (excellence).
    Specialization is for insects. (Heinlein) - Have Pun, Will Babble! (Aronson)

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • JavierQQ at Nov 6, 2011 at 4:10 am
    Thanks for your reply and sorry for my late response =)

    I'm using Typus, I know that theres a group for typus but I think that
    this problem can happen everywhere
    You are still being too vague about your requirement, for me anyway.
    Can you write the validation test as pseudo code, being absolutely
    clear about each reference there?  Ignore everything about the meaning
    of the database fields and just write the validation requirement in
    terms of data in the database and the new data about to be saved,
    referencing just database fields.
    I have a view of evaluations

    EVALUATIONS

    Name View questions Add question
    Math view add (edit)
    Science view add (edit)

    EVALUATION : Math
    QUESTIONS

    Number View alternatives Add alt.
    1 view add (edit)
    2 view add (edit)
    3 view add (edit)

    with
    validates_uniqueness_of :qnumber, :scope => :evaluation_id

    I made that there's only one question number "1" on each evaluation
    the only problem that I have (as I mentioned before) is that, when I
    edit the second question (# 2)
    and I change its content, it doesn't let me to do it, because they
    found that the number (# 2) has been already taken

    The other problem is what happens if I want to edit
    the second question (# 2) and I change the number to (# 3)
    with that validation it let me do that, but what if I edit the second
    question (#2)
    and I put (#1).... there will be two questions with the same number
    (#1)

    I was searching for a validation for it, I've been reading the
    validation guide and found section 15 about
    Proc.new.... it could help but I don't understand it well (I'm really
    new with rails)
    JavierQQ, try this:

    validates :qnumber, :uniqueness => { :scope => :evaluation_id,
    :message => "must be unique within each evaluation" }

    in the model, and let us know what happens.  Don't worry about what
    controller it's going through to get there. s>
    -Dave
    It works! ... well as far as I tested :), thanks a lot

    I've been reading the messages about top-posting and I'm really really
    sorry about any trouble I could have caused
    Thanks a lot Colin for keep on trying to help me, I'll follow your
    advice about how to post something

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Colin Law at Nov 6, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    On 6 November 2011 04:10, JavierQQ wrote:
    I've been reading the messages about top-posting and I'm really really
    sorry about any trouble I could have caused
    Don't worry about it, it was my fault for asking you. Some people get
    very excited about this sort of thing.
    Thanks a lot Colin for keep on trying to help me, I'll follow your
    advice about how to post something
    I think Dave Aronson's suggestions were more use than mine :)

    Colin

    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
    To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouprubyonrails-talk @
categoriesrubyonrails
postedNov 4, '11 at 3:40p
activeNov 6, '11 at 5:01p
posts42
users8
websiterubyonrails.org
irc#RubyOnRails

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase