Issues - binarylogic/searchlogic

binarylogic / searchlogic

915

Description:

Searchlogic makes using ActiveRecord named scopes easier and less repetitive.

Sort by: Priority | Votes | Last Updated

Loading…

8.

1 vote

Association chains that mention the same table twice produce incorrect results
1 comment Created 3 months ago by GFunk911

Title

Body
For the example, take the following schema: Product: id ProductCategory: id, product_id, category_id Category: id Rows: You have one product in multiple categories Product id: 1 ProductCategory id: 1, category_id: 1, product_id: 1 ProductCategory id: 2, category_id: 2, product_id: 1 Category id: 1 Category id: 2 Say you want to find all categories that contain a product which is also in category X. The following scope returns 2 copies of category 1, since the where sql references the wrong product_categories table. It should return categories 1 and 2 Category.product_categories_product_product_categories_category_id_equals(1) SELECT `categories`.* FROM `categories` INNER JOIN `product_categories` ON product_categories.category_id = categories.id INNER JOIN `products` ON `products`.id = `product_categories`.product_id INNER JOIN `product_categories` product_categories_products ON product_categories_products.product_id = products.id WHERE (product_categories.category_id = 235)
or cancel

For the example, take the following schema:

Product: id
ProductCategory: id, product_id, category_id
Category: id

Rows: You have one product in multiple categories
Product id: 1

ProductCategory id: 1, category_id: 1, product_id: 1
ProductCategory id: 2, category_id: 2, product_id: 1

Category id: 1
Category id: 2

Say you want to find all categories that contain a product which is also in category X.

The following scope returns 2 copies of category 1, since the where sql references the wrong product_categories table. It should return categories 1 and 2

Category.product_categories_product_product_categories_category_id_equals(1)

SELECT categories.* FROM categories
INNER JOIN product_categories ON product_categories.category_id = categories.id
INNER JOIN products ON products.id = product_categories.product_id
INNER JOIN product_categories product_categories_products ON product_categories_products.product_id = products.id
WHERE (product_categories.category_id = 235)

Comments

binarylogic Wed Aug 19 14:37:57 -0700 2009 | link

Yeah, I see what you're doing, AR supports this, I just need to figure out how to tap into it.

Comment
Yeah, I see what you're doing, AR supports this, I just need to figure out how to tap into it.
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
9.

0 votes

@Ben Johnson
x

from-lighthouse
x

|S| new
x

Attribute with multiple parameters
7 comments Created 3 months ago by binarylogic

Title

Body
Hello, here is a feature request Using named scope like "created_at_after" with helper like "form.date_select" which produces created_at(1i), created_at(2i) ... are not handled. @@@ html <% form_for(@foos) do |f| %> <%= f.label :bar_at, ’Bar at after’ %> <%= f.date_select :bar_at_after %> <%#= f.label :bar_at, ’Bar at after’ %> <%#= f.text_field :bar_at %> <%= f.label :bar %> <%= f.text_field :bar_equals %> <%= f.submit :search %> @@@ It ends in an obvious attribute(xi) not recognized. I can still used a text_field helper and pass a string as shown in the example, but that’s not always what can be expected in a search form. It would be nice feature to have. JH. Chabran [original LH ticket](http://binarylogic.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16601/tickets/112) This ticket has 0 attachment(s).
or cancel
Hello, here is a feature request

Using named scope like "created_at_after" with helper like "form.date_select" which produces created_at(1i), created_at(2i) ... are not handled.

@@@ html <% form_for(@foos) do |f| %>
```

 <%= f.label :bar_at, &rsquo;Bar at after&rsquo; %>
 <%= f.date_select :bar_at_after %>



 <%#= f.label :bar_at, &rsquo;Bar at after&rsquo; %>
 <%#= f.text_field :bar_at %>



 <%= f.label :bar %>
 <%= f.text_field :bar_equals %>



 <%= f.submit :search %>

```
@@@

It ends in an obvious attribute(xi) not recognized. I can still used a text_field helper and pass a string as shown in the example, but that’s not always what can be expected in a search form.

It would be nice feature to have.

JH. Chabran

original LH ticket

This ticket has 0 attachment(s).
Comments

binarylogic Sun Aug 09 01:51:30 -0700 2009 | link

I agree, I tend to always use a javascript calendar date select, etc. So I have never had this issues. I don't think this would be too difficult to solve.

Comment
I agree, I tend to always use a javascript calendar date select, etc. So I have never had this issues. I don't think this would be too difficult to solve.
or cancel

jhchabran Sun Aug 09 15:11:24 -0700 2009 | link

I added support for Date, as you can see there : http://github.com/jhchabran/searchlogic/blob/2d3d7ac5d7a267c8a367bf0066683a9212efc1de/lib/searchlogic/search.rb

It lacks support Time class and maybe some cosmetic changes, but it basically works. ( an expectation was added to search_spec too ).

Comment
I added support for Date, as you can see there : http://github.com/jhchabran/searchlogic/blob/2d3d7ac5d7a267c8a367bf0066683a9212efc1de/lib/searchlogic/search.rb It lacks support Time class and maybe some cosmetic changes, but it basically works. ( an expectation was added to search_spec too ).
or cancel

binarylogic Sun Aug 09 20:54:50 -0700 2009 | link

Thanks for doing this. I tried refactoring the code and couldn't really follow it. I can't safely pull that code in because I don't completely understand it and it was really hard to follow.

Comment
Thanks for doing this. I tried refactoring the code and couldn't really follow it. I can't safely pull that code in because I don't completely understand it and it was really hard to follow.
or cancel

binarylogic Sun Aug 09 20:56:28 -0700 2009 | link

Also, that code would be best in a completely separate module instead of changing the class itself.

Comment
Also, that code would be best in a completely separate module instead of changing the class itself.
or cancel

jhchabran Wed Aug 12 07:29:28 -0700 2009 | link

Separating it in a module is basically doable, but it will leads to hook Search#conditions=, Search#method_missing, which seems to me to be a lot of work for just one line and maybe a bit unreliable if you modify these later.

This feature is clearly not critical, but it feels to me that not supporting all form helpers makes it at just a small step from being completely transparent for developers using it.

You wrote you found it hard to follow, can you detail a bit more ?

Rails multi-parameters are weird and in my opinion should be handled earlier, so params[:created_at] should return a date object or at least one string when submitted with three parameters, which would solve everything in the current case.

This forces me to rewrite handling code for theses parameters because as they did in AR it's coupled with models, and leads to a tricky regexp ( created_at(3i) means third argument with need to be casted as an integer), it's easy to write clear code for that, but in the original AR multi-parameter stuff, they allowed support for things like attribute(4f) and I kept support for these to stay coherent.

It was that part you found confusing or something else ?

And btw while I'm here thanks for SearchLogic, I saved much time using it :-)

Comment
Separating it in a module is basically doable, but it will leads to hook Search#conditions=, Search#method_missing, which seems to me to be a lot of work for just one line and maybe a bit unreliable if you modify these later. This feature is clearly not critical, but it feels to me that not supporting all form helpers makes it at just a small step from being completely transparent for developers using it. You wrote you found it hard to follow, can you detail a bit more ? Rails multi-parameters are weird and in my opinion should be handled earlier, so params[:created_at] should return a date object or at least one string when submitted with three parameters, which would solve everything in the current case. This forces me to rewrite handling code for theses parameters because as they did in AR it's coupled with models, and leads to a tricky regexp ( created_at(3i) means third argument with need to be casted as an integer), it's easy to write clear code for that, but in the original AR multi-parameter stuff, they allowed support for things like attribute(4f) and I kept support for these to stay coherent. It was that part you found confusing or something else ? And btw while I'm here thanks for SearchLogic, I saved much time using it :-)
or cancel

binarylogic Tue Aug 18 22:40:17 -0700 2009 | link

I agree, the rails multi parameters are weird and complicated, which is why I try to avoid them. I don't know that your code was hard to follow, its the problem at hand that is hard. My BIG thing with v2 is to keep it simple, and if I add in a feature it needs to be separate out into its own module. v1 got bloated and very hard to maintain. I want to keep v2 simple. Simplicity is better for everyone. Less problems, better performance, etc.

So if you could split this out into a multi parameter module I would add that in. I added your code it and it started to get complicated and harder for me to maintain, which is why I removed it.

Thanks.

Comment
I agree, the rails multi parameters are weird and complicated, which is why I try to avoid them. I don't know that your code was hard to follow, its the problem at hand that is hard. My BIG thing with v2 is to keep it simple, and if I add in a feature it needs to be separate out into its own module. v1 got bloated and very hard to maintain. I want to keep v2 simple. Simplicity is better for everyone. Less problems, better performance, etc. So if you could split this out into a multi parameter module I would add that in. I added your code it and it started to get complicated and harder for me to maintain, which is why I removed it. Thanks.
or cancel

Sutto Tue Sep 15 15:54:05 -0700 2009 | link

We needed this for a client project earlier today so I spent some time writing an alternative implementation. It hooks in a bit differently (alias_method_chain with conditions=) but it works well for the stuff I've tested.

It's a bit more complex than jhchabran's approach as well (although, it was
inspired / designed like it in some parts) and it's built around AR's implementation
/ how the AR implementation is coded as of Rails 2.3.

You can see the patch changes at http://github.com/Sutto/searchlogic/, with the actual implementation itself at http://github.com/Sutto/searchlogic/blob/master/lib/searchlogic/search_ext/multiparameter_assignment.rb

Comment
We needed this for a client project earlier today so I spent some time writing an alternative implementation. It hooks in a bit differently (alias_method_chain with conditions=) but it works well for the stuff I've tested. It's a bit more complex than jhchabran's approach as well (although, it was inspired / designed like it in some parts) and it's built around AR's implementation / how the AR implementation is coded as of Rails 2.3. You can see the patch changes at http://github.com/Sutto/searchlogic/, with the actual implementation itself at http://github.com/Sutto/searchlogic/blob/master/lib/searchlogic/search_ext/multiparameter_assignment.rb
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
14.

0 votes

@Ben Johnson
x

conditions
x

from-lighthouse
x

group
x

grouping
x

|S| open
x

not_group support
4 comments Created 3 months ago by binarylogic

Title

Body
hey, is something like a ’not_group’ available within searchlogic (or in combination with ActiveRecord)? e.g.: s=System.new_search => #<SystemSearch {:limit=>25}> >> g=s.conditions.not_group => #<SystemConditions> >> g.name_equals="test" => "test" >> g.descr_equals="test" => "test" >> s.count => 95 generated sql: SQL (0.5ms) SELECT count("systems".id) AS count_id FROM "systems" WHERE (NOT (("systems"."name" = ’test’ AND "systems"."descr" = ’test’))) [original LH ticket](http://binarylogic.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16601/tickets/83) This ticket has 0 attachment(s).
or cancel
hey,

is something like a ’not_group’ available within searchlogic (or in combination with ActiveRecord)?

e.g.:
s=System.new_search
=> #25}>

g=s.conditions.not_group => # g.name_equals="test" => "test" g.descr_equals="test" => "test" s.count => 95

generated sql:
SQL (0.5ms) SELECT count("systems".id) AS count_id FROM "systems" WHERE (NOT (("systems"."name" = ’test’ AND "systems"."descr" = ’test’)))

original LH ticket

This ticket has 0 attachment(s).

Comments
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:24:37 -0700 2009 | link

not_group support

After digging around, trying to find another solution without success I decided to implement that feature within searchlogic. The changes are committed to a fork of searchlogic (http://github.com/sdecastelberg/searchlogic/tree/master). Maybe someone can have a look at it. Feedback is appreciated. (i’m rather new to ruby/ror..)

The implemented not_group works fine for my needs.

by sdecastelberg

Comment
**not_group support** After digging around, trying to find another solution without success I decided to implement that feature within searchlogic. The changes are committed to a fork of searchlogic (http://github.com/sdecastelberg/searchlogic/tree/master). Maybe someone can have a look at it. Feedback is appreciated. (i’m rather new to ruby/ror..) The implemented not_group works fine for my needs. by sdecastelberg
or cancel

binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:24:42 -0700 2009 | link

not_group support

Why wouldn’t you adjust your conditions to have the opposite effect instead of doing a not_group. Either way, whatever works for you, if you like the not_group solution then I think its fine, but couldn’t you accomplish the same thing by adjusting your conditions?

by Ben Johnson

Comment
**not_group support** Why wouldn’t you adjust your conditions to have the opposite effect instead of doing a not_group. Either way, whatever works for you, if you like the not_group solution then I think its fine, but couldn’t you accomplish the same thing by adjusting your conditions? by Ben Johnson
or cancel
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:24:45 -0700 2009 | link
not_group support

the not_group was initially needed for a monitoring/inventory application to map network components (software and hardware) and provide configuration for different network and application layer scanners.

For bulk editing, reporting, etc. we needed an exact match search for every single attribute on every model.

Search Dialog

*group1

*SnmpScan (include) *oid=ssCpuIdle *alarm-threshold=90 *System (exclude) *Status=Test *Modified Date start: 2009-01-01

would match the following search (when searching for systems)

(system.snmp_scan.oid=ssCpuIdle AND system.snmp_scan.alarm_threshold=90) AND NOT (system.state=Test AND modified_date>=2009-01-01)

The attributes are grouped model-wise and can be combined differently (and, or) and the search can be expanded by adding other groups with subgroups.
The include/exclude flag just sets the not_group attribute on the group, without having to negate all the single attributes.

by sdecastelberg
Comment
**not_group support** the not_group was initially needed for a monitoring/inventory application to map network components (software and hardware) and provide configuration for different network and application layer scanners. For bulk editing, reporting, etc. we needed an exact match search for every single attribute on every model. Search Dialog ============== *group1 *SnmpScan (include) *oid=ssCpuIdle *alarm-threshold=90 *System (exclude) *Status=Test *Modified Date start: 2009-01-01 would match the following search (when searching for systems) (system.snmp_scan.oid=ssCpuIdle AND system.snmp_scan.alarm_threshold=90) AND NOT (system.state=Test AND modified_date>=2009-01-01) The attributes are grouped model-wise and can be combined differently (and, or) and the search can be expanded by adding other groups with subgroups. The include/exclude flag just sets the not_group attribute on the group, without having to negate all the single attributes. by sdecastelberg
or cancel
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:24:47 -0700 2009 | link

not_group support

I see what you’re saying. But searchlogic deals with single conditions. If you are writing your own named scope for these conditions why not add in the "NOT" yourself? I guess I’m a little confused how you are using searchlogic and how you want to use it.

by Ben Johnson

Comment
**not_group support** I see what you’re saying. But searchlogic deals with single conditions. If you are writing your own named scope for these conditions why not add in the "NOT" yourself? I guess I’m a little confused how you are using searchlogic and how you want to use it. by Ben Johnson
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
15.

1 vote

@Ben Johnson
x

associations
x

from-lighthouse
x

order
x

search
x

|S| open
x

#search ignores :order argument on associations which have an order defined
3 comments Created 3 months ago by binarylogic

Title

Body
Consider a class Foo, with associated Bars: @@@ ruby class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :bars, :order => :name end @@@ If you do: @@@ ruby Foo.bars.search(:order => "ascend_by_size").all @@@ The results are still sorted by :name -- i.e. the "ascend_by_size" :order argument to the #search method is ignored. The SQL query looks like: @@@ sql SELECT * FROM bars WHERE bars.foo_id = 1 ORDER BY bars.name; @@@ -- Is this a bug? [original LH ticket](http://binarylogic.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16601/tickets/109) This ticket has 0 attachment(s).
or cancel
Consider a class Foo, with associated Bars:

@@@ ruby class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :bars, :order => :name end
@@@

If you do:

@@@ ruby Foo.bars.search(:order => "ascend_by_size").all
@@@

The results are still sorted by :name -- i.e. the "ascend_by_size" :order argument to the #search method is ignored.

The SQL query looks like:

@@@ sql SELECT * FROM bars WHERE bars.foo_id = 1 ORDER BY bars.name;
@@@

--

Is this a bug?

original LH ticket

This ticket has 0 attachment(s).

Comments
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:25:14 -0700 2009 | link

#search ignores :order argument on associations which have an order defined

Hmm, I’m not sure, let me add a failing test and play around with it. If you want fork the project and write a quick failing test. It looks like the Searchlogic::Search#current_scope is taking priority.

by Ben Johnson

Comment
**#search ignores :order argument on associations which have an order defined** Hmm, I’m not sure, let me add a failing test and play around with it. If you want fork the project and write a quick failing test. It looks like the Searchlogic::Search#current_scope is taking priority. by Ben Johnson
or cancel
mig Thu Sep 10 14:59:41 -0700 2009 | link
Here is a failing spec: It's running through a defined named_scope, same issue though:

it "should overwrite ordering through a named_scope" do %w(bjohnson thunt).each { |username| User.create(:username => username) } User.class_eval { named_scope :by_username, :order => "username DESC" } User.by_username.ascend_by_username.should == User.all(:order => "username ASC") end
Comment
Here is a failing spec: It's running through a defined named_scope, same issue though: it "should overwrite ordering through a named_scope" do %w(bjohnson thunt).each { |username| User.create(:username => username) } User.class_eval { named_scope :by_username, :order => "username DESC" } User.by_username.ascend_by_username.should == User.all(:order => "username ASC") end
or cancel
mig Fri Sep 11 15:43:27 -0700 2009 | link

Hmm, looks like this is the same problem as http://github.com/binarylogic/searchlogic/issues#issue/17 which is an AR problem, not a searchlogic one

Comment
Hmm, looks like this is the same problem as http://github.com/binarylogic/searchlogic/issues#issue/17 which is an AR problem, not a searchlogic one
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
17.

2 votes

@Ben Johnson
x

from-lighthouse
x

order
x

order_by
x

|S| open
x

Multi column ordering
5 comments Created 3 months ago by binarylogic

Title

Body
I would like to have ordering by multiple columns, where each of them can be ascending and descending. Example: "ORDER BY date ASC, id DESC" What about creating scope like this: order_by_date_asc_and_id_desc Sadly, nesting orders with scopes is not possible in Rails 2.3.2, see here: https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/2253-named_scope-and-nested-order-clauses So it should be created as ONE scope. [original LH ticket](http://binarylogic.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16601/tickets/99) This ticket has 0 attachment(s).
or cancel
I would like to have ordering by multiple columns, where each of them can be ascending and descending. Example: "ORDER BY date ASC, id DESC"

What about creating scope like this:
order_by_date_asc_and_id_desc

Sadly, nesting orders with scopes is not possible in Rails 2.3.2, see here:
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/2253-named_scope-and-nested-order-clauses

So it should be created as ONE scope.

original LH ticket

This ticket has 0 attachment(s).

Comments
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:26:14 -0700 2009 | link

Multi column ordering

Yeah, that would be a nice feature and it’s probably something AR scopes should handle anyways. It looks like it will get applied though, I think they are just waiting on better tests.

by Ben Johnson

Comment
**Multi column ordering** Yeah, that would be a nice feature and it’s probably something AR scopes should handle anyways. It looks like it will get applied though, I think they are just waiting on better tests. by Ben Johnson
or cancel

binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:26:16 -0700 2009 | link

Multi column ordering

Actually my tests are showing that AR does support multi column ordering by chaining named scopes. Are you not seeing that?

by Ben Johnson

Comment
**Multi column ordering** Actually my tests are showing that AR does support multi column ordering by chaining named scopes. Are you not seeing that? by Ben Johnson
or cancel

binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:26:20 -0700 2009 | link

Multi column ordering

Hm, I tested the following with Rails 2.3.2:

@@@ Contact.scoped(:order => ’name DESC’)

=> SELECT * FROM contacts ORDER BY contacts.name DESC

Contact.scoped(:order => ’name DESC’).scoped(:order => ’id DESC’)

=> SELECT * FROM contacts ORDER BY contacts.name DESC

@@@

You will see that the second scope is ignored.

Are we talking about different things? ;-)

by Georg Ledermann

Comment
**Multi column ordering** Hm, I tested the following with Rails 2.3.2: @@@ Contact.scoped(:order => ’name DESC’) # => SELECT * FROM `contacts` ORDER BY contacts.name DESC Contact.scoped(:order => ’name DESC’).scoped(:order => ’id DESC’) # => SELECT * FROM `contacts` ORDER BY contacts.name DESC @@@ You will see that the second scope is ignored. Are we talking about different things? ;-) by Georg Ledermann
or cancel
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:26:22 -0700 2009 | link
Multi column ordering

Yeah, my fault, it does chain them together when you pass order in an action method:

User.ascend_by_id.ascend_by_email.first(:order => "test") ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql::Error: Unknown column ’test’ in ’order clause’: SELECT * FROM `users` ORDER BY test, users.id ASC LIMIT 1

But for me to make this work I would have to alter the default behavior of AR, which I don’t think is a good idea. I’m not sure what to do. I could do some tricky things in the Search object, but I want that to remain consistent with calling the named scopes directly.

by Ben Johnson
Comment
**Multi column ordering** Yeah, my fault, it does chain them together when you pass order in an action method: <pre> User.ascend_by_id.ascend_by_email.first(:order => "test") ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql::Error: Unknown column ’test’ in ’order clause’: SELECT * FROM `users` ORDER BY test, users.id ASC LIMIT 1 </pre> But for me to make this work I would have to alter the default behavior of AR, which I don’t think is a good idea. I’m not sure what to do. I could do some tricky things in the Search object, but I want that to remain consistent with calling the named scopes directly. by Ben Johnson
or cancel
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:26:25 -0700 2009 | link

Multi column ordering

I agree with you. My current solution to have mutliple ordering is by adding some named scopes like this:
@@@ ruby named_scope :ordered_by_name, :order => ’last_name ASC, first_name ASC’

Contact.search(:ordered_by_name => true)
@@@

Somtimes I need to override the predefined searchlogic ordering scopes like this:
@@@ ruby # Preserve insertion order for sorting by date named_scope :descend_by_date, :order => ’date DESC, id DESC’ named_scope :ascend_by_date, :order => ’date ASC, id ASC’ @@@

For me, it’s ok to stay with this. We will see if ActiveRecord will merge multiple ordering scopes in the future.

by Georg Ledermann

Comment
**Multi column ordering** I agree with you. My current solution to have mutliple ordering is by adding some named scopes like this: @@@ ruby named_scope :ordered_by_name, :order => ’last_name ASC, first_name ASC’ Contact.search(:ordered_by_name => true) @@@ Somtimes I need to override the predefined searchlogic ordering scopes like this: @@@ ruby # Preserve insertion order for sorting by date named_scope :descend_by_date, :order => ’date DESC, id DESC’ named_scope :ascend_by_date, :order => ’date ASC, id ASC’ @@@ For me, it’s ok to stay with this. We will see if ActiveRecord will merge multiple ordering scopes in the future. by Georg Ledermann
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
18.

0 votes

@Ben Johnson
x

from-lighthouse
x

|S| open
x

Some way to deal with i18n (*_translations tables)?
3 comments Created 3 months ago by binarylogic

Title

Body
I tried long time to deal something with model translations tables, but i can’t figure out anything. Maybe somebody will find way to filter data by field from translations table... [original LH ticket](http://binarylogic.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16601/tickets/90) This ticket has 0 attachment(s).
or cancel
I tried long time to deal something with model translations tables, but i can’t figure out anything. Maybe somebody will find way to filter data by field from translations table...

original LH ticket

This ticket has 0 attachment(s).

Comments
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:26:49 -0700 2009 | link

Some way to deal with i18n (*_translations tables)?

I’m not sure what you are asking.

by Ben Johnson

Comment
**Some way to deal with i18n (*_translations tables)?** I’m not sure what you are asking. by Ben Johnson
or cancel
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:26:54 -0700 2009 | link
Some way to deal with i18n (*_translations tables)?

When using i18n with rails (in activerecord), translated columns are keept in other table (eg. you have table articles, so translated fields like title, content etc are in article_translations table). When i try search something in title of arcticle then i have error - unknown attribute. You have to do something like:

check if table articles have specified attribute

if have then process conditions for it

if not then check if is article_translations table (or ArticleTranslation model will be easier)

if exists then check attribute and process conditions

if not then raise error

Im using for now such mechanism in my controller, but it’s not much pretty way...

by Kriss Kowalik
Comment
**Some way to deal with i18n (*_translations tables)?** When using i18n with rails (in activerecord), translated columns are keept in other table (eg. you have table articles, so translated fields like title, content etc are in article_translations table). When i try search something in title of arcticle then i have error - unknown attribute. You have to do something like: - check if table articles have specified attribute - if have then process conditions for it - if not then check if is article_translations table (or ArticleTranslation model will be easier) - if exists then check attribute and process conditions - if not then raise error Im using for now such mechanism in my controller, but it’s not much pretty way... by Kriss Kowalik
or cancel
binarylogic Fri Aug 07 15:26:56 -0700 2009 | link

Some way to deal with i18n (*_translations tables)?

I see what you are saying. The translations / mapping should happen above board, I don’t feel like this is searchlogic responsibility. Does active record do this with their attributes when trying to create / update records?

by Ben Johnson

Comment
**Some way to deal with i18n (*_translations tables)?** I see what you are saying. The translations / mapping should happen above board, I don’t feel like this is searchlogic responsibility. Does active record do this with their attributes when trying to create / update records? by Ben Johnson
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
21.

1 vote

Order only check columns, why not checking additional values requested via SELECT
3 comments Created 2 months ago by ZenCocoon

Title

Body
Hi Ben, Looks like the order option only accept valid columns names. What about additional values requested with SELECT. Example : SELECT `users`.*, COUNT(1) as count FROM ... ORDER BY count ASC In this case, ordering by count can be extremely useful but doesn't look supported right now. As quick workaround creating the named "scope ascend_by_count" and "descend_by_count" makes the job but still overload your models far to quick while adding such feature to searchlogic would keep things light and clean. Thanks again for this great lib and excellent rewrite, Warm regards, -- Sebastien Grosjean - ZenCocoon
or cancel
Hi Ben,

Looks like the order option only accept valid columns names. What about additional values requested with SELECT.

Example :

SELECT users.*, COUNT(1) as count FROM ... ORDER BY count ASC

In this case, ordering by count can be extremely useful but doesn't look supported right now.

As quick workaround creating the named "scope ascend_by_count" and "descend_by_count" makes the job but still overload your models far to quick while adding such feature to searchlogic would keep things light and clean.

Thanks again for this great lib and excellent rewrite,
Warm regards,
-- Sebastien Grosjean - ZenCocoon

Comments
slainer68 Tue Aug 25 03:34:05 -0700 2009 | link

Yeah, I like this.

I often want to order asc/desc using the count of an associated class.

When you use a counter_cache this is pretty easy to do using the counter_cache column but I don't want to use counter_caches everywhere and every time.

Nicolas.

Comment
Yeah, I like this. I often want to order asc/desc using the count of an associated class. When you use a counter_cache this is pretty easy to do using the counter_cache column but I don't want to use counter_caches everywhere and every time. Nicolas.
or cancel

binarylogic Fri Sep 11 22:32:06 -0700 2009 | link

Hi Sebastien, I'm not sure I follow, how would you dynamically create that scope? I guess you cold make an exception for count if that is an AR default.

Comment
Hi Sebastien, I'm not sure I follow, how would you dynamically create that scope? I guess you cold make an exception for count if that is an AR default.
or cancel
ZenCocoon Tue Sep 15 04:41:07 -0700 2009 | link
Hi Ben,

Didn't look the inside of named scope system yet (I actually should). The fact is that as of now, it seems that you allow as order, only existing column names from the tables queried.

I my case, I'm looking to also allow values defined by the SELECT parameter. It can be "count" as shown in the previous example but also different values depending your named scope

Example :

named_scope :select_with_author_name_as_writter,

:select => "posts.*, authors.name AS writter", :joins => "LEFT OUTER JOIN authors ON authors.id = posts.author_id"

Post.select_with_author_name_as_writter.descend_by_writter NoMethodError: undefined method `descend_by_writter' for #<Class:0x101d8dc48>
...

Please let me know if it's still blurred.
Comment
Hi Ben, Didn't look the inside of named scope system yet (I actually should). The fact is that as of now, it seems that you allow as order, only existing column names from the tables queried. I my case, I'm looking to also allow values defined by the SELECT parameter. It can be "count" as shown in the previous example but also different values depending your named scope Example : named_scope :select_with_author_name_as_writter, :select => "posts.*, authors.name AS writter", :joins => "LEFT OUTER JOIN authors ON authors.id = posts.author_id" >> Post.select_with_author_name_as_writter.descend_by_writter NoMethodError: undefined method `descend_by_writter' for #<Class:0x101d8dc48> ... Please let me know if it's still blurred.
or cancel
Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
23.

1 vote

OR fails with associated classes
1 comment Created 2 months ago by twalpole

Title

Body
Using OR searches with associated classes fails with Searchlogic::NamedScopes::OrConditions::UnknownConditionError errors
or cancel

Using OR searches with associated classes fails with Searchlogic::NamedScopes::OrConditions::UnknownConditionError errors

Comments

laserlemon Thu Oct 01 11:45:50 -0700 2009 | link

I also encountered this and just confirmed it as a bug. The README says that the OR-joined scopes should work with scopes on associations but that doesn't seem to be the case and the code comments make it seem as though it's still pending.

In my fork, I've written a failing test and a possible solution which passes the test.

http://github.com/laserlemon/searchlogic

Comment
I also encountered this and just confirmed it as a bug. The README says that the OR-joined scopes should work with scopes on associations but that doesn't seem to be the case and the code comments make it seem as though it's still pending. In my fork, I've written a failing test and a possible solution which passes the test. http://github.com/laserlemon/searchlogic
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
24.

5 votes

Problem with "OR" named_scopes in forms
12 comments Created 2 months ago by hsa

Title

Body
It seems its not working from the form: - form_for @search do |f| %p = f.text_field :name_or_description_like = f.submit "Search" It works from the console, using Report.name_or_description_like but when I use it in the form I just get a "false" result in the text field, and no filters are applied (I checked the logs). Let me know if you need any more info (I'm using the latest version of searchlogic and rails 2.3.2). I also run a test creating a new rails app from scratch with rails 2.3.3 and exactly the same happens, it doesn't get filtered and it shows a "false" string in the form (as a response). Thanks a lot for a great plugin!
or cancel
It seems its not working from the form:
```
- form_for @search do |f|
 %p
 = f.text_field :name_or_description_like
 = f.submit "Search"
```
It works from the console, using Report.name_or_description_like but when I use it in the form I just get a "false" result in the text field, and no filters are applied (I checked the logs).

Let me know if you need any more info (I'm using the latest version of searchlogic and rails 2.3.2).

I also run a test creating a new rails app from scratch with rails 2.3.3 and exactly the same happens, it doesn't get filtered and it shows a "false" string in the form (as a response).

Thanks a lot for a great plugin!
Comments
fabiokr Mon Aug 31 06:32:14 -0700 2009 | link

It happens to me too.

Comment
It happens to me too.
or cancel
carlosantoniodasilva Thu Sep 03 04:53:28 -0700 2009 | link
The same for me, doing this works:

Update.subject_or_body_contains "list"

But this does not:

Update.search(:subject_or_body_contains => "list").all
Comment
The same for me, doing this works: Update.subject_or_body_contains "list" But this does not: Update.search(:subject_or_body_contains => "list").all
or cancel
imanel Wed Sep 09 08:10:11 -0700 2009 | link

Rails 2.3.4, SL 2.3.3:
Update.search(:subject_or_body_contains => "list") produces:

#<Searchlogic::Search:0xb7457ac4 @klass=Update(id: integer, subject: string, body: string, created_at: datetime, updated_at: datetime), @conditions={:subject_or_body_contains=>false}, current_scopenil

Comment
Rails 2.3.4, SL 2.3.3: Update.search(:subject_or_body_contains => "list") produces: #<Searchlogic::Search:0xb7457ac4 @klass=Update(id: integer, subject: string, body: string, created_at: datetime, updated_at: datetime), @conditions={:subject_or_body_contains=>false}, current_scopenil
or cancel

joerichsen Fri Sep 11 00:15:58 -0700 2009 | link

Same for me Rails 2.3.4 and SL 2.3.3

User.name_or_email_like('Gade').size => 2
User.search(:name_or_email_like => 'Gade').all.size => 379

?

Comment
Same for me Rails 2.3.4 and SL 2.3.3 User.name_or_email_like('Gade').size => 2 User.search(:name_or_email_like => 'Gade').all.size => 379 ?
or cancel

imanel Fri Sep 11 01:16:23 -0700 2009 | link

There will be exacly the some with:
s = User.search
s.name_or_email_like('Gade')
That's because in Search model in "or" conditions is some bug that set any "or" condition to false(it is visible as I showed earlier but value = false) so no filtering by that condition. Right now I can't find the exact line, but I think that it is somehow connected to validating scope "or" spliting (lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb)
Any ideas?

Comment
There will be exacly the some with: s = User.search s.name_or_email_like('Gade') That's because in Search model in "or" conditions is some bug that set any "or" condition to false(it is visible as I showed earlier but value = false) so no filtering by that condition. Right now I can't find the exact line, but I think that it is somehow connected to validating scope "_or_" spliting (lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb) Any ideas?
or cancel
hpoydar Tue Sep 15 08:58:57 -0700 2009 | link
Confirming:

>> User.last_name_like_or_first_name_like('tom').size => 1 >> User.search(:last_name_like_or_first_name_like => 'tom').size => 3
Comment
Confirming: >> User.last_name_like_or_first_name_like('tom').size => 1 >> User.search(:last_name_like_or_first_name_like => 'tom').size => 3
or cancel
kabisa Wed Sep 16 05:31:51 -0700 2009 | link
Same for me:

>> User.login_or_email_like('lec').size SQL (0.4ms) SELECT count(*) AS count_all FROM `users` WHERE ((users.email LIKE '%lec%') OR (users.login LIKE '%lec%')) => 2 >> User.search(:login_or_email_like => "lec").size SQL (0.3ms) SELECT count(*) AS count_all FROM `users` => 23
Comment
Same for me: >> User.login_or_email_like('lec').size SQL (0.4ms) SELECT count(*) AS count_all FROM `users` WHERE ((users.email LIKE '%lec%') OR (users.login LIKE '%lec%')) => 2 >> User.search(:login_or_email_like => "lec").size SQL (0.3ms) SELECT count(*) AS count_all FROM `users` => 23
or cancel
gavinhughes Thu Sep 17 00:31:48 -0700 2009 | link

I'm having the same problem.

Comment
I'm having the same problem.
or cancel

andyferra Thu Sep 17 11:26:28 -0700 2009 | link

Same here.

Comment
Same here.
or cancel
namxam Tue Sep 22 10:16:36 -0700 2009 | link
Ok… I encountered the same problem and checked the source code (quite impressive). After some digging and testing I found the problem, but so far I did not came up with a perfect solution for it. Until then, I have a partial quick fix which I provide at: http://github.com/namxam/searchlogic/
This fix is only working for fully qualified conditions:

name_and_username_like => not working

name_like_and_user_name_like => working

I hope I can provide a fix for the remaining problem as well
Comment
Ok… I encountered the same problem and checked the source code (quite impressive). After some digging and testing I found the problem, but so far I did not came up with a perfect solution for it. Until then, I have a partial quick fix which I provide at: http://github.com/namxam/searchlogic/ This fix is only working for fully qualified conditions: * name_and_username_like => not working * name_like_and_user_name_like => working I hope I can provide a fix for the remaining problem as well
or cancel
nebolsin Sun Sep 27 16:45:51 -0700 2009 | link

Hi! I finally fixed this problem even for not fully qualified conditions. And also added type convertion, so User.search(:id_or_age_lte, '10') will now work properly.

The fix is here: http://github.com/nebolsin/searchlogic/

Comment
Hi! I finally fixed this problem even for not fully qualified conditions. And also added type convertion, so User.search(:id_or_age_lte, '10') will now work properly. The fix is here: http://github.com/nebolsin/searchlogic/
or cancel

namxam Mon Sep 28 03:07:07 -0700 2009 | link

That's great news. I hope it will be pulled into the master repository soon!

Comment
That's great news. I hope it will be pulled into the master repository soon!
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
25.

1 vote

Searching for NOT existing associations
3 comments Created 2 months ago by ledermann

Title

Body
I'm looking for a way to use Searchlogic to find records which DON'T HAVE records for a given association. For example: "Find all Contacts which have no addresses" class Contact < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :addresses end class Address < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :contact end In SQL, this query does the job: SELECT contacts.* FROM contacts LEFT JOIN addresses ON (addresses.contact_id = contacts.id) WHERE (addresses.ID IS NULL) So far as I understand, Searchlogic does not support this. Of course, I can creare a named scope for this: class Contact named_scope :without_addresses, :joins => 'LEFT JOIN addresses ON addresses.contact_id = contacts.id', :conditions => 'addresses.id IS NULL' end But I would like to have a more dynamic way, means Searchlogic creating this scope on the fly. What do you think?
or cancel
I'm looking for a way to use Searchlogic to find records which DON'T HAVE records for a given association. For example: "Find all Contacts which have no addresses"
```
class Contact < ActiveRecord::Base
 has_many :addresses
end
class Address < ActiveRecord::Base
 belongs_to :contact
end
```
In SQL, this query does the job:
```
SELECT contacts.* FROM contacts LEFT JOIN addresses ON (addresses.contact_id = contacts.id) WHERE (addresses.ID IS NULL) 
```
So far as I understand, Searchlogic does not support this. Of course, I can creare a named scope for this:
```
class Contact
 named_scope :without_addresses, :joins => 'LEFT JOIN addresses ON addresses.contact_id = contacts.id', :conditions => 'addresses.id IS NULL'
end
```
But I would like to have a more dynamic way, means Searchlogic creating this scope on the fly. What do you think?
Comments
binarylogic Fri Aug 28 07:04:55 -0700 2009 | link

Searchlogic has a method called left_outer_joins that will create the join for you. But to the best way to solve this is to just add a named scope for each association. I would probably just create another module and do it in there.

Comment
Searchlogic has a method called left_outer_joins that will create the join for you. But to the best way to solve this is to just add a named scope for each association. I would probably just create another module and do it in there.
or cancel
ledermann Fri Aug 28 10:49:09 -0700 2009 | link
Yes, creating scopes the explicit way will work. But I'm looking for a dynamic way. One more example:

Right now, with Searchlogic it's possible to find all contacts with an address in Germany:

>> Contact.search(:addresses_country_equals => 'DE') => "SELECT `contacts`.* FROM `contacts` INNER JOIN `addresses` ON addresses.contact_id = contacts.id WHERE (addresses.country = 'DE') "

This creates an INNER JOIN, works fine.

Now, I want to find contacts which don't have an address in Germany. It would be great if Searchlogic could do this, perhaps with this statement:

>> Contact.search(:without_addresses_country_equals => 'DE') => "SELECT `contacts`.* FROM `contacts` LEFT JOIN `addresses` ON (addresses.contact_id = contacts.id AND addresses.country = 'DE') WHERE (addresses.id IS NULL) "

The idea is: If the hash key has a "without" in front of the association name, Searchlogic builds the query with the LEFT-JOIN/ID-IS-NULL-Pattern.

IMHO such a feature (implemented in Searchlogic) would be very powerful.
Comment
Yes, creating scopes the explicit way will work. But I'm looking for a dynamic way. One more example: Right now, with Searchlogic it's possible to find all contacts with an address in Germany: >> Contact.search(:addresses_country_equals => 'DE') => "SELECT `contacts`.* FROM `contacts` INNER JOIN `addresses` ON addresses.contact_id = contacts.id WHERE (addresses.country = 'DE') " This creates an INNER JOIN, works fine. Now, I want to find contacts which *don't* have an address in Germany. It would be great if Searchlogic could do this, perhaps with this statement: >> Contact.search(:without_addresses_country_equals => 'DE') => "SELECT `contacts`.* FROM `contacts` LEFT JOIN `addresses` ON (addresses.contact_id = contacts.id AND addresses.country = 'DE') WHERE (addresses.id IS NULL) " The idea is: If the hash key has a "without" in front of the association name, Searchlogic builds the query with the LEFT-JOIN/ID-IS-NULL-Pattern. IMHO such a feature (implemented in Searchlogic) would be very powerful.
or cancel
ledermann Fri Aug 28 10:56:22 -0700 2009 | link
One addition: The whole thing with the left join is required to include contacts which does not have any address, too. You may think my example can be reached with this simple query:

Contact.search(:addresses_country_is_not => 'DE')

But this gives a different result set, because it does not include the contacts which have no addresses at all.
Comment
One addition: The whole thing with the left join is required to include contacts which does not have any address, too. You may think my example can be reached with this simple query: Contact.search(:addresses_country_is_not => 'DE') But this gives a different result set, because it does not include the contacts which have no addresses at all.
or cancel
Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
27.

1 vote

Exception "undefined method `call' for nil:NilClass"
2 comments Created 2 months ago by slainer68

Title

Body
Hi, I had a weird exception on my production server when using a Searchlogic named_scope, here is the code : <pre> def index @products = Product.available.ascend_by_position.all # ... end </pre> available is a regular named_scope and ascend_by_position is a Searchlogic named_scope on the position column. The exception : <pre> Error Message: -------------- NoMethodError: undefined method `call' for nil:NilClass Where: ------ orders#index [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb, line 97 Backtrace: ---------- [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:97:in `ascend_by_position' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:181:in `send' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:181:in `method_missing' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/base.rb:2143:in `with_scope' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:113:in `__send__' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:113:in `with_scope' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:174:in `method_missing' [RAILS_ROOT]/app/controllers/orders_controller.rb:4:in `index' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:1331:in `send' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:1331:in `perform_action_without_filters' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/filters.rb:617:in `call_filters' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/filters.rb:610:in `perform_action_without_benchmark' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:68:in `perform_action_without_rescue' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activesupport-2.3.4/lib/active_support/core_ext/benchmark.rb:17:in `ms' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activesupport-2.3.4/lib/active_support/core_ext/benchmark.rb:10:in `realtime' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activesupport-2.3.4/lib/active_support/core_ext/benchmark.rb:17:in `ms' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:68:in `perform_action_without_rescue' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/rescue.rb:160:in `perform_action_without_flash' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/flash.rb:146:in `perform_action' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:532:in `send' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:532:in `process_without_filters' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/filters.rb:606:in `sass_old_process' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/haml-2.2.3/rails/../lib/sass/plugin/rails.rb:19:in `process' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:391:in `process' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:386:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/routing/route_set.rb:437:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/dispatcher.rb:87:in `dispatch' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/dispatcher.rb:121:in `_call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/dispatcher.rb:130:in `build_middleware_stack' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/head.rb:9:in `call' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/head.rb:9:in `call' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/methodoverride.rb:24:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/params_parser.rb:15:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/rails-2.3.4/lib/rails/rack/metal.rb:47:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/session/abstract_store.rb:122:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/query_cache.rb:29:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/query_cache.rb:34:in `cache' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/query_cache.rb:9:in `cache' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/query_cache.rb:28:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/connection_pool.rb:361:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/failsafe.rb:26:in `call' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/lock.rb:11:in `call' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/lock.rb:11:in `synchronize' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/lock.rb:11:in `call' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/dispatcher.rb:106:in `call' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/request_handler.rb:95:in `process_request' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_request_handler.rb:207:in `main_loop' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/railz/application_spawner.rb:378:in `start_request_handler' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/railz/application_spawner.rb:336:in `handle_spawn_application' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/utils.rb:183:in `safe_fork' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/railz/application_spawner.rb:334:in `handle_spawn_application' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `__send__' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `main_loop' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:196:in `start_synchronously' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:163:in `start' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/railz/application_spawner.rb:213:in `start' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:262:in `spawn_rails_application' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server_collection.rb:126:in `lookup_or_add' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:256:in `spawn_rails_application' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server_collection.rb:80:in `synchronize' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server_collection.rb:79:in `synchronize' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:255:in `spawn_rails_application' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:154:in `spawn_application' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:287:in `handle_spawn_application' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `__send__' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `main_loop' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:196:in `start_synchronously' /opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/bin/passenger-spawn-server:61 </pre> The weird thing is that I only had this exception on my production server, never had it on my development box. I tried with and without the .all at the end of line without success. I had to remove the searchlogic named_scope and replace it by a regular named_scope to get rid of this exception.
or cancel
Hi,

I had a weird exception on my production server when using a Searchlogic named_scope, here is
the code :
```
def index
 @products = Product.available.ascend_by_position.all
 # ... 
end
```
available is a regular named_scope and ascend_by_position is a Searchlogic named_scope on the position column.

The exception :
```
Error Message:
--------------
NoMethodError: undefined method `call' for nil:NilClass

Where:
------
orders#index
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb, line 97

Backtrace:
----------
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:97:in `ascend_by_position'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:181:in `send'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:181:in `method_missing'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/base.rb:2143:in `with_scope'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:113:in `__send__'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:113:in `with_scope'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:174:in `method_missing'
[RAILS_ROOT]/app/controllers/orders_controller.rb:4:in `index'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:1331:in `send'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:1331:in `perform_action_without_filters'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/filters.rb:617:in `call_filters'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/filters.rb:610:in `perform_action_without_benchmark'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:68:in `perform_action_without_rescue'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activesupport-2.3.4/lib/active_support/core_ext/benchmark.rb:17:in `ms'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activesupport-2.3.4/lib/active_support/core_ext/benchmark.rb:10:in `realtime'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activesupport-2.3.4/lib/active_support/core_ext/benchmark.rb:17:in `ms'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:68:in `perform_action_without_rescue'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/rescue.rb:160:in `perform_action_without_flash'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/flash.rb:146:in `perform_action'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:532:in `send'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:532:in `process_without_filters'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/filters.rb:606:in `sass_old_process'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/haml-2.2.3/rails/../lib/sass/plugin/rails.rb:19:in `process'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:391:in `process'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/base.rb:386:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/routing/route_set.rb:437:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/dispatcher.rb:87:in `dispatch'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/dispatcher.rb:121:in `_call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/dispatcher.rb:130:in `build_middleware_stack'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/head.rb:9:in `call'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/head.rb:9:in `call'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/methodoverride.rb:24:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/params_parser.rb:15:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/rails-2.3.4/lib/rails/rack/metal.rb:47:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/session/abstract_store.rb:122:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/query_cache.rb:29:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/query_cache.rb:34:in `cache'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/query_cache.rb:9:in `cache'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/query_cache.rb:28:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/connection_pool.rb:361:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/failsafe.rb:26:in `call'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/lock.rb:11:in `call'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/lock.rb:11:in `synchronize'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/vendor/rack-1.0.0-git/lib/rack/lock.rb:11:in `call'
[GEM_ROOT]/gems/actionpack-2.3.4/lib/action_controller/dispatcher.rb:106:in `call'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/rack/request_handler.rb:95:in `process_request'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_request_handler.rb:207:in `main_loop'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/railz/application_spawner.rb:378:in `start_request_handler'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/railz/application_spawner.rb:336:in `handle_spawn_application'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/utils.rb:183:in `safe_fork'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/railz/application_spawner.rb:334:in `handle_spawn_application'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `__send__'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `main_loop'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:196:in `start_synchronously'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:163:in `start'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/railz/application_spawner.rb:213:in `start'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:262:in `spawn_rails_application'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server_collection.rb:126:in `lookup_or_add'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:256:in `spawn_rails_application'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server_collection.rb:80:in `synchronize'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server_collection.rb:79:in `synchronize'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:255:in `spawn_rails_application'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:154:in `spawn_application'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/spawn_manager.rb:287:in `handle_spawn_application'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `__send__'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:352:in `main_loop'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/lib/phusion_passenger/abstract_server.rb:196:in `start_synchronously'
/opt/ruby-enterprise/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/passenger-2.2.5/bin/passenger-spawn-server:61
```
The weird thing is that I only had this exception on my production server, never had it on my development box.
I tried with and without the .all at the end of line without success. I had to remove the searchlogic named_scope and replace it by a regular named_scope to get rid of this exception.
Comments

binarylogic Fri Sep 11 22:27:38 -0700 2009 | link

I'm really not sure, its hard for me to determine the problem from this. Is it just this named scope?

Comment
I'm really not sure, its hard for me to determine the problem from this. Is it just this named scope?
or cancel

slainer68 Thu Sep 17 06:24:18 -0700 2009 | link

Hi Ben, I had this problem again, it seems to be only on this named_scope, strange.
I'll try to investigate more.

Comment
Hi Ben, I had this problem again, it seems to be only on this named_scope, strange. I'll try to investigate more.
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
28.

1 vote

stack level too deep in merge_scopes_with_or
2 comments Created 2 months ago by dougalcorn

Title

Body
Class Message < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :addresses, :class_name => "MessageAddress" named_scope :system, :joins => 'LEFT JOIN message_addresses ON message_addresses.message_id = messages.id', :conditions => 'message_addresses.id IS NULL' end Class MessageAddress < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :message belongs_to :recipeint, :polymorphic => true named_scope :for_user, lambda { |user| { :conditions => ["blah blah blah", user] } } end Now when I do Message.addresses_for_user_or_system(user) It generates a stack level too deep. <pre> searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `send' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `merge_scopes_with_or' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `collect' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `merge_scopes_with_or' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:99:in `create_or_condition' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `send' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `merge_scopes_with_or' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `collect' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `merge_scopes_with_or' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:99:in `create_or_condition' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:22:in `addresses_for_user_or_without_addresses' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:22:in `send' searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:22:in `method_missing' vendor/gems/mislav-will_paginate-2.3.11/lib/will_paginate/finder.rb:170:in `method_missing' app/models/message.rb:19:in `for_user' </pre> There's a couple problems here. Obviously there's a bug that causes the stack level too deep. But the _or_ using an associated named scope seems to be completely unsupported. So maybe my answer is to just not do that. Oh, and I manually patched my searchlogic 2.3.1 with the latest version of or_condition.rb
or cancel
```
Class Message < ActiveRecord::Base
 has_many :addresses, :class_name => "MessageAddress"
 named_scope :system, :joins => 'LEFT JOIN message_addresses ON message_addresses.message_id = messages.id', :conditions => 'message_addresses.id IS NULL'
end

Class MessageAddress < ActiveRecord::Base
 belongs_to :message
 belongs_to :recipeint, :polymorphic => true
 named_scope :for_user, lambda { |user| { :conditions => ["blah blah blah", user] } }
end
```
Now when I do Message.addresses_for_user_or_system(user) It generates a stack level too deep.
```
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `send' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `merge_scopes_with_or' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `collect' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `merge_scopes_with_or' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:99:in `create_or_condition' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `send' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `merge_scopes_with_or' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `collect' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:104:in `merge_scopes_with_or' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:99:in `create_or_condition' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:22:in `addresses_for_user_or_without_addresses' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:22:in `send' 
 searchlogic (2.3.1) [v] lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:22:in `method_missing' 
 vendor/gems/mislav-will_paginate-2.3.11/lib/will_paginate/finder.rb:170:in `method_missing' 
 app/models/message.rb:19:in `for_user' 
```
There's a couple problems here. Obviously there's a bug that causes the stack level too deep. But the or using an associated named scope seems to be completely unsupported. So maybe my answer is to just not do that. Oh, and I manually patched my searchlogic 2.3.1 with the latest version of or_condition.rb
Comments

binarylogic Fri Sep 11 22:25:13 -0700 2009 | link

Yeah, association support is coming, I'm working out a couple of issues. I'll throw this in the test suite.

Comment
Yeah, association support is coming, I'm working out a couple of issues. I'll throw this in the test suite.
or cancel

dougalcorn Sat Sep 12 06:13:11 -0700 2009 | link

Searchlogic really is great. We're making a lot of use out of it. In this case we ended up just writing our own named scope: break out the sql!

Comment
Searchlogic really is great. We're making a lot of use out of it. In this case we ended up just writing our own named scope: break out the sql!
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
29.

0 votes

Search with empty array returns all results instead of none
1 comment Created about 1 month ago by gravis

Title

Body
Not sure I understand correctly, it might not be a bug. If I use : Activity.user_id_equals_any(current_user.friend_ids) I expect this to be equivalent to Activity.all(:conditions => {:user_id => current_user.friend_ids}) and it's not. The first expression will return all activities if the user doesn't have friends, and the second no activity, as expected. thanks !
or cancel

Not sure I understand correctly, it might not be a bug.
If I use :

Activity.user_id_equals_any(current_user.friend_ids)
I expect this to be equivalent to
Activity.all(:conditions => {:user_id => current_user.friend_ids})

and it's not. The first expression will return all activities if the user doesn't have friends, and the second no activity, as expected.

thanks !

Comments

gravis Mon Sep 14 14:18:17 -0700 2009 | link

sounds I only have to use Activity.user_id_is(current_user.friend_ids)
:)

Comment
sounds I only have to use Activity.user_id_is(current_user.friend_ids) :)
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
30.

0 votes

Double JOIN with order
0 comments Created about 1 month ago by ZenCocoon

Title

Body
I guess the example below will speak on it's own : named_scope :select_with_authors, :joins => "LEFT OUTER JOIN authors ON authors.id = posts.author_id" >> Post.select_with_authors.descend_by_author_name ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql::Error: Not unique table/alias: 'authors': SELECT `posts`.* FROM `posts` INNER JOIN `authors` ON `authors`.id = `posts`.author_id LEFT OUTER JOIN authors ON authors.id = posts.author_id ORDER BY authors.name DESC Please let me know if you like further details.
or cancel
I guess the example below will speak on it's own :

named_scope :select_with_authors,
```
:joins => "LEFT OUTER JOIN authors ON authors.id = posts.author_id"
```
Post.select_with_authors.descend_by_author_name ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql::Error: Not unique table/alias: 'authors': SELECT posts.* FROM posts INNER JOIN authors ON authors.id = posts.author_id LEFT OUTER JOIN authors ON authors.id = posts.author_id ORDER BY authors.name DESC

Please let me know if you like further details.
Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
31.

3 votes

OR conditions with Search class
3 comments Created about 1 month ago by davidsevcik

Title

Body
Could be possible to add OR support even to Search class. I would like do this Book.search(:title_or_description_like => 'ruby') or in chain s = Book.search s.title_or_description_like('ruby') Now it produce only s.conditions => {:title_or_description_like => false} Thanks for wonderful work.
or cancel
Could be possible to add OR support even to Search class. I would like do this
```
Book.search(:title_or_description_like => 'ruby')
```
or in chain
```
s = Book.search
s.title_or_description_like('ruby')
```
Now it produce only
```
s.conditions => {:title_or_description_like => false}
```
Thanks for wonderful work.
Comments

jtoy Wed Sep 30 10:51:29 -0700 2009 | link

is this going to be worked on, I just ran into this. A large part of using search logic is the search method, but you currently cant use or statements like: User.search(:gpa_lte_or_null => 4) It just ignores all the conditions.

Comment
is this going to be worked on, I just ran into this. A large part of using search logic is the search method, but you currently cant use or statements like: User.search(:gpa_lte_or_null => 4) It just ignores all the conditions.
or cancel

theworkinggroup Tue Oct 27 13:40:12 -0700 2009 | link

noticed the same issue. a bit annoying.

Comment
noticed the same issue. a bit annoying.
or cancel

xijo Tue Nov 03 14:57:14 -0800 2009 | link

would be very helpful if the search object supports OR chaining as well.

Comment
would be very helpful if the search object supports OR chaining as well.
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
32.

0 votes

Backward compatibility
0 comments Created about 1 month ago by openhood

Title

Body
Please replace line 99 of search.rb scope = conditions.inject(klass.scoped(current_scope)) do |scope, condition| with scope = conditions.inject(klass.scoped(current_scope || {})) do |scope, condition| otherwise it doesn't work with Rails 2.2.2 This issue was already described here http://binarylogic.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16601/tickets/94-nil-object-error but no solution has been given apart from upgrading to Rails 2.3.x, which sadly is often not possible.
or cancel

Please replace line 99 of search.rb
scope = conditions.inject(klass.scoped(current_scope)) do |scope, condition| with
scope = conditions.inject(klass.scoped(current_scope || {})) do |scope, condition| otherwise it doesn't work with Rails 2.2.2

This issue was already described here http://binarylogic.lighthouseapp.com/projects/16601/tickets/94-nil-object-error but no solution has been given apart from upgrading to Rails 2.3.x, which sadly is often not possible.

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
33.

0 votes

Range values clobbered by search method
0 comments Created about 1 month ago by laserlemon

Title

Body
Typecasting Range values isn't working and although Ranges aren't typically passed into the arguments for the search method, it's certainly not impossible (as I found out). The individual scopes work correctly, but when accessed through the `search` method, they fall apart. I've forked the repo, added a failing test and presented a solution. http://github.com/laserlemon/searchlogic
or cancel

Typecasting Range values isn't working and although Ranges aren't typically passed into the arguments for the search method, it's certainly not impossible (as I found out). The individual scopes work correctly, but when accessed through the search method, they fall apart. I've forked the repo, added a failing test and presented a solution.

http://github.com/laserlemon/searchlogic

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
34.

0 votes

Existing named scopes are ignored
0 comments Created about 1 month ago by laserlemon

Title

Body
An existing named scope that shares its name with one of the model's columns is ignored when accessed via the `search` method. The `normalize_scope_name` method appends "_equals" with no regard for whether the scope already exists. I've forked the repo, added a failing test and presented a solution. http://github.com/laserlemon/searchlogic
or cancel

An existing named scope that shares its name with one of the model's columns is ignored when accessed via the search method. The normalize_scope_name method appends "_equals" with no regard for whether the scope already exists. I've forked the repo, added a failing test and presented a solution.

http://github.com/laserlemon/searchlogic

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
35.

0 votes

Multiple record copies returned for habtm association
0 comments Created about 1 month ago by infrared

Title

Body
I committed a test case that reproduces the problem in http://github.com/infrared/searchlogic/commit/34d3b89122812df2b4fa9a0c8339674ecf25f206 When you have two models joined with has_and_belongs_to_many and you search one of them with something like: FirstModel.search(:second_models_id_equals_any => [1, 2]).all multiple copies of the same FirstModel record will be returned if a the record happens to be associated with more than one SecondModels.
or cancel
I committed a test case that reproduces the problem in http://github.com/infrared/searchlogic/commit/34d3b89122812df2b4fa9a0c8339674ecf25f206

When you have two models joined with has_and_belongs_to_many and you search one of them with something like:
```
FirstModel.search(:second_models_id_equals_any => [1, 2]).all
```
multiple copies of the same FirstModel record will be returned if a the record happens to be associated with more than one SecondModels.
Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
36.

0 votes

Equality Checks not Working
4 comments Created about 1 month ago by alexbevi

Title

Body
For some reason, when I try to do an _is(#) or _equals(#) or _eq(#), I always get an error about there being the wrong number of arguments. Table: <pre> Workflow(id: integer, created_by: integer, held_by: integer, prefix: integer, project_id: integer, form_id: integer, fields: text, subject: string, priority: integer, status: integer, due_date: datetime, created_at: datetime, updated_at: datetime) </pre> Records: <pre> +----+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | id | cre... | hel... | prefix | pro... | for... | fields | sub... | pri... | status | due... | cre... | upd... | +----+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 28d... | | 2 | 0 | | 200... | 200... | | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 7 | | | 2 | 0 | | 200... | 200... | +----+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ </pre> Trying to execute *Workflow.status_is(0)* results in: <pre> ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (2 for 1) from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:93:in `attribut e_condition' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:93:in `create_p rimary_condition' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:151:in `call' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:151:in `scope_o ptions' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:91:in `call' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:91:in `named_scope' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:96:in `call' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:96:in `status_equals' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:175:in `send' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:175:in `create_ alias_condition' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:83:in `create_c ondition' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:66:in `method_m issing' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/association_conditions.rb:19: in `method_missing' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/association_ordering.rb:27:in `method_missing' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/ordering.rb:30:in `method_mis sing' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:24:in `metho d_missing' from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/base.rb:1833:in `method_missing' from (irb):11 </pre>
or cancel
For some reason, when I try to do an is(#) or equals(#) or _eq(#), I always get an error about there being the wrong number of arguments.

Table:
```
Workflow(id: integer, created_by: integer, held_by: integer, prefix: integer, project_id: integer, form_id: integer,
fields: text, subject: string, priority: integer, status: integer, due_date: datetime, created_at: datetime, updated_at:
 datetime)
```
Records:
```
+----+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| id | cre... | hel... | prefix | pro... | for... | fields | sub... | pri... | status | due... | cre... | upd... |
+----+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 28d... | | 2 | 0 | | 200... | 200... |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 7 | | | 2 | 0 | | 200... | 200... |
+----+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
```
Trying to execute Workflow.status_is(0) results in:
```
ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (2 for 1)
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:93:in `attribut
e_condition'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:93:in `create_p
rimary_condition'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:151:in `call'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:151:in `scope_o
ptions'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:91:in `call'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:91:in `named_scope'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:96:in `call'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/named_scope.rb:96:in `status_equals'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:175:in `send'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:175:in `create_
alias_condition'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:83:in `create_c
ondition'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/conditions.rb:66:in `method_m
issing'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/association_conditions.rb:19:
in `method_missing'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/association_ordering.rb:27:in
 `method_missing'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/ordering.rb:30:in `method_mis
sing'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/searchlogic-2.3.5/lib/searchlogic/named_scopes/or_conditions.rb:24:in `metho
d_missing'
 from C:/Ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.2.2/lib/active_record/base.rb:1833:in `method_missing'
 from (irb):11
```
Comments

laserlemon Tue Oct 06 08:20:19 -0700 2009 | link

It looks like this may be my fault. The problem is that ActiveRecord::Base.attribute_condition only started accepting two arguments when it started supporting end-exclusive ranges, starting at ActiveRecord 2.3.1. I see you're using 2.2.2, which is causing the error.

Comment
It looks like this may be my fault. The problem is that `ActiveRecord::Base.attribute_condition` only started accepting two arguments when it started supporting end-exclusive ranges, starting at ActiveRecord 2.3.1. I see you're using 2.2.2, which is causing the error.
or cancel

alexbevi Tue Oct 06 08:30:43 -0700 2009 | link

Is it worth having a version check in there for backwards compatibility?

Comment
Is it worth having a version check in there for backwards compatibility?
or cancel

laserlemon Tue Oct 06 08:32:37 -0700 2009 | link

Could be. I defer to Ben.

Comment
Could be. I defer to Ben.
or cancel

alexbevi Tue Oct 06 08:50:44 -0700 2009 | link

Ok, I updated my RAILS_GEM_VERSION from 2.2.2 to 2.3.4 (not sure why I never changed the default :P) and can confirm that it works properly.

Comment
Ok, I updated my RAILS_GEM_VERSION from 2.2.2 to 2.3.4 (not sure why I never changed the default :P) and can confirm that it works properly.
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
37.

2 votes

Limit option?
1 comment Created about 1 month ago by adamsalter

Title

Body
>> Track.descend_by_updated_at.limit(20) undefined method `limit' for #<Class:0x00000102685488> It seems like a logical method. Hopefully you agree.
or cancel
```
>> Track.descend_by_updated_at.limit(20)
undefined method `limit' for #<Class:0x00000102685488>
```
It seems like a logical method. Hopefully you agree.
Comments

slainer68 Thu Oct 08 01:51:09 -0700 2009 | link

I like this :) !

Comment
I like this :) !
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
38.

0 votes

Search through association with column named "name" fails
1 comment Created 29 days ago by naven87

Title

Body
Take the following models Earnings: belongs_to :period Period: has_many :earnings if Period has a string column titled "name" the following search fails Earnings.period_name_like("Q309") with a MySQL error that the Table/Alias periods is not unique. If I look at the generated MySQL, it creates both an inner and and outer join on the periods table against the earnings table. If I instead call Earning.period_id_is(7) it works fine and no error is generated. The MySQL query only includes one outer join and no inner join.
or cancel

Take the following models
Earnings: belongs_to :period
Period: has_many :earnings
if Period has a string column titled "name" the following search fails
Earnings.period_name_like("Q309") with a MySQL error that the Table/Alias periods is not unique. If I look at the generated MySQL, it creates both an inner and and outer join on the periods table against the earnings table.

If I instead call Earning.period_id_is(7) it works fine and no error is generated. The MySQL query only includes one outer join and no inner join.

Comments

naven87 Tue Oct 13 22:40:31 -0700 2009 | link

So after more digging, I found that the column name was irrelevant, the real issue was any default scope on the model is merged into the query without concern for overlap. So if the default scope has a join or include in it, that will be included directly in the final query and if the searchlogic portion uses the same table name it will add it's own join into the query which can create the problem described

Comment
So after more digging, I found that the column name was irrelevant, the real issue was any default scope on the model is merged into the query without concern for overlap. So if the default scope has a join or include in it, that will be included directly in the final query and if the searchlogic portion uses the same table name it will add it's own join into the query which can create the problem described
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
39.

0 votes

Condition Constants
0 comments Created 28 days ago by xn

Title

Body
I am trying to use jqGrid's search function with searchlogic. The rub of it is jqGrid's aliases for 'less than or equal to' and a few others do not map onto searchlogic's. Right now, I am creating a hash constant in the application controller to the mapping. What I would love is to have a configuration file that would allow me to extend the aliases. This way, I could drop that config file in any app I so chose that I wanted to use both libraries in concert. Anyway, thank you for such a wonderful plugin and if you would like me to write up a spec, I would be more than happy to. cheers, -xn
or cancel

I am trying to use jqGrid's search function with searchlogic. The rub of it is jqGrid's aliases for 'less than or equal to' and a few others do not map onto searchlogic's. Right now, I am creating a hash constant in the application controller to the mapping. What I would love is to have a configuration file that would allow me to extend the aliases. This way, I could drop that config file in any app I so chose that I wanted to use both libraries in concert. Anyway, thank you for such a wonderful plugin and if you would like me to write up a spec, I would be more than happy to.

cheers,
-xn

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
40.

0 votes

parameter being converted to hash?
0 comments Created 27 days ago by wtn

Title

Body
# in the server console, parameters coming in fine: Processing GamesController#index (for 127.0.0.1 at 2009-10-16 07:12:36) [GET] Parameters: {"commit"=>"Submit", "search"=>{"year_ge"=>"1920", "order"=>"", "year_le"=>"2009", "segment"=>"reg"}} # but gets passed incorrectly to the scope: NoMethodError (undefined method `year_ge' for {}:Hash):
or cancel

in the server console, parameters coming in fine:

Processing GamesController#index (for 127.0.0.1 at 2009-10-16 07:12:36) [GET]
Parameters: {"commit"=>"Submit", "search"=>{"year_ge"=>"1920", "order"=>"", "year_le"=>"2009", "segment"=>"reg"}}

but gets passed incorrectly to the scope:

NoMethodError (undefined method `year_ge' for {}:Hash):

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
41.

0 votes

Does not work with virtual attributes
1 comment Created 24 days ago by hgujral

Title

Body
Ben seems to show examples of "User.age_greater_than(20)" but age as an attribute is often used in models as a virtual attribute which calculates the current age from DOB. When I use age as a virtual attribute and search on it, I get a "undefined method `age_greater_than' for #<Class:0x48fff80>" What am I missing?
or cancel

Ben seems to show examples of "User.age_greater_than(20)" but age as an attribute is often used in models as a virtual attribute which calculates the current age from DOB.

When I use age as a virtual attribute and search on it, I get a "undefined method `age_greater_than' for #<Class:0x48fff80>"

What am I missing?

Comments

Mange Sun Oct 18 23:56:02 -0700 2009 | link

Searchlogic only generates ActiveRecord conditions as named scopes. Since your RDBMS does not know about the virtual attributes, this is impossible. Create your own named_scope, if neccessary, where you create the condition required for this to work.

Comment
Searchlogic only generates ActiveRecord conditions as named scopes. Since your RDBMS does not know about the virtual attributes, this is impossible. Create your own named_scope, if neccessary, where you create the condition required for this to work.
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
42.

0 votes

searchlogic uses NULL value on search by date (created_at_gte)
3 comments Created 16 days ago by spovich

Title

Body
Doing a simple search on the created_at column will produce SQL that has a NULL value for the date. In the form, I input in ISO date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and the values shows in the params in the logs: Parameters: {"commit"=>"Search", "action"=>"index", "controller"=>"foos", "search"=>{"city_like"=>"", "created_at_gte"=>"2009-04-13"}} But the resulting SQL gives a NULL for the date: SELECT * FROM "foos" WHERE (foos.created_at >= NULL)
or cancel
Doing a simple search on the created_at column will produce SQL that has a NULL value for the date.

In the form, I input in ISO date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and the values shows in the params in the logs:

Parameters: {"commit"=>"Search", "action"=>"index", "controller"=>"foos", "search"=>{"city_like"=>"", "created_at_gte"=>"2009-04-13"}}

But the resulting SQL gives a NULL for the date:

SELECT * FROM "foos" WHERE (foos.created_at >= NULL)

Comments
spovich Mon Oct 26 16:46:00 -0700 2009 | link

Ok, the issue is that searchlogic silently makes a nil when you provide a date for a datetime field. However, ruby converts date to time without a problem:

Time.parse "Jan 1, 2009" => Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 -0800 2009

So, this seems to be a bug to me. I'll write some failing specs if you agree that it should be able to convert a date to a datetime when searching.

Comment
Ok, the issue is that searchlogic silently makes a nil when you provide a date for a datetime field. However, ruby converts date to time without a problem: >> Time.parse "Jan 1, 2009" => Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 -0800 2009 So, this seems to be a bug to me. I'll write some failing specs if you agree that it should be able to convert a date to a datetime when searching.
or cancel
spovich Mon Oct 26 22:09:19 -0700 2009 | link
Taking another look and I see search_spec.rb line 267 is a search of a datetime that is given an date, so we agree that a Date should be upcast to a dateTime.

The specs all pass for me using the SQLite db, but trying the same thing with a stock rails app 2.3.4 and ruby 1.8.7 in IRB (console) with Postgres 8.3 and latest pg gem (0.8.0) will fail (running on OS X):

>> s = Message.search

=> #<Searchlogic::Search:0x35e6ad4 @klass=Message(id: integer, type: string, uuid: string, title: string, description: text, created_at: datetime, updated_at: datetime), @current_scope=nil>

>> s.created_at_after = 'Jan 1, 2009' => "Jan 1, 2009" >> s.created_at_after => nil

I don't know how to make this fail in SQLIte, but it is clearly failing in postgres. Any ideas?

Thanks,
John
Comment
Taking another look and I see search_spec.rb line 267 is a search of a datetime that is given an date, so we agree that a Date should be upcast to a dateTime. The specs all pass for me using the SQLite db, but trying the same thing with a stock rails app 2.3.4 and ruby 1.8.7 in IRB (console) with Postgres 8.3 and latest pg gem (0.8.0) will fail (running on OS X): <pre> >> s = Message.search </pre> => #<Searchlogic::Search:0x35e6ad4 @klass=Message(id: integer, type: string, uuid: string, title: string, description: text, created_at: datetime, updated_at: datetime), @current_scope=nil> <pre> >> s.created_at_after = 'Jan 1, 2009' => "Jan 1, 2009" >> s.created_at_after => nil </pre> I don't know how to make this fail in SQLIte, but it is clearly failing in postgres. Any ideas? Thanks, John
or cancel
spovich Tue Nov 10 22:23:16 -0800 2009 | link

Ok, so I modified the searchlogic test spec's to use postgres, and everything passes except the tests where LIKE becomes ILIKE. Must be something in our app, so will need to dig in further.

Comment
Ok, so I modified the searchlogic test spec's to use postgres, and everything passes except the tests where LIKE becomes ILIKE. Must be something in our app, so will need to dig in further.
or cancel

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
43.

0 votes

Parameter Not Read Correctly
0 comments Created 10 days ago by primary0

Title

Body
This is what my search form sends: "search"=>{"value_equals"=>"0..15000", "property_type_id"=>"1"} The value_equals parameter is not read as a proper range, like from 0 to 15000 and while it should display as a result a record with value "10000", none is shown.
or cancel

This is what my search form sends:

"search"=>{"value_equals"=>"0..15000", "property_type_id"=>"1"}

The value_equals parameter is not read as a proper range, like from 0 to 15000 and while it should display as a result a record with value "10000", none is shown.

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
44.

0 votes

association perplexity
0 comments Created 9 days ago by SNlsn

Title

Body
given a model Company with attribute name and a model Contact with attributes first_name and last_name The Models are associated like this: Contact belongs_to Company Company has_many Contacts I wish to make a search field into which I can type a portion of either the contact's first name, the contact's last name or the company name. This works: @contacts = Contact.company_name_like(params[:search]) This works: @contacts = Contact.first_name_or_last_name_like(params[:search]) This does NOT work: @contacts = Contact.company_name_or_first_name_or_last_name_like(params[:search]) It returns this error: "The condition 'company_name' is not a valid condition, we could not find any scopes that match this." Evidently the scope company_name works by itself but not in combination with the other two. And the other two work, but not with company_name. I can only assume this has to do with the association and I am missing something obvious. Can anyone point out how to do it correctly? The last example (company_name_or_first_name_or_last_name_like) worked in an earlier version of my app, when company was an attribute of Contact. When I made Company a separate model it stopped working. I believe I have the current version of binarylogic-searchlogic. Rails version is 2.3.2, in development mode with standard sqlite database. Thank you.
or cancel

given a model
Company with attribute
name

and a model
Contact with attributes
first_name and last_name

The Models are associated like this:
Contact belongs_to Company Company has_many Contacts

I wish to make a search field into which I can type a portion of either the contact's first name, the contact's last name or the company name.

This works:
@contacts = Contact.company_name_like(params[:search])

This works:
@contacts = Contact.first_name_or_last_name_like(params[:search])

This does NOT work:
@contacts = Contact.company_name_or_first_name_or_last_name_like(params[:search]) It returns this error:
"The condition 'company_name' is not a valid condition, we could not find any scopes that match this."

Evidently the scope company_name works by itself but not in combination with the other two. And the other two work, but not with company_name. I can only assume this has to do with the association and I am missing something obvious. Can anyone point out how to do it correctly?

The last example (company_name_or_first_name_or_last_name_like) worked in an earlier version of my app, when company was an attribute of Contact. When I made Company a separate model it stopped working.

I believe I have the current version of binarylogic-searchlogic. Rails version is 2.3.2, in development mode with standard sqlite database.

Thank you.

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
45.

1 vote

Only works when config.cache_classes = false
0 comments Created 8 days ago by jnarowski

Title

Body
I love search logic, but cannot get it to run in production mode. I found out that the cache_classes setting was the culprit. I know searchlogic works dynamically, but is there a way to enable searchlogic with class_caching? When the classes are not cached I get: undefined method `cached_tags_contains' for #<Array:0x4e064c0> or undefined method `id_contains' for #<Array:0x4e064c0>
or cancel

I love search logic, but cannot get it to run in production mode. I found out that the cache_classes setting was the culprit. I know searchlogic works dynamically, but is there a way to enable searchlogic with class_caching?

When the classes are not cached I get:
undefined method cached_tags_contains' for #<Array:0x4e064c0> or undefined methodid_contains' for #<Array:0x4e064c0>

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
46.

0 votes

respond_to? :paginate returns false
0 comments Created 6 days ago by imme5150

Title

Body
For some reason Searchlogic::Search.respond_to?(:paginate) returns false, even though you can call paginate on it. This was messing up Hobo, so I monkey patched it: class Searchlogic::Search def respond_to?(symbol) return true if symbol === :paginate old_respond_to? symbol end end
or cancel

For some reason Searchlogic::Search.respond_to?(:paginate) returns false, even though you can call paginate on it.

This was messing up Hobo, so I monkey patched it:
class Searchlogic::Search
def respond_to?(symbol) return true if symbol === :paginate old_respond_to? symbol end end

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown
47.

0 votes

Modifiers not working
0 comments Created 6 days ago by vpuzzella

Title

Body
The change log states that modifiers were added quite a while ago. However, I can't seem to use them. I keep getting errors like: "The lower_of_first_name_eq is not a valid condition. You may only use conditions that map to a named scope" Are modifiers available in the latest release?
or cancel

The change log states that modifiers were added quite a while ago. However, I can't seem to use them. I keep getting errors like: "The lower_of_first_name_eq is not a valid condition. You may only use conditions that map to a named scope"

Are modifiers available in the latest release?

Comments

Parsed with GitHub Flavored Markdown