Fix for Issue #106.

[burnt43]

when using collection_check_boxes if you select none of the check boxes nothing will update. I've added a hidden field with value "" so if you don't select any check boxes it will update. This is like the behavior for collection_select.

[carloslopes]

I think it's better if we add an option to collection_check_boxes called unchecked_value and when the user pass it, we create the hidden field with the provided value.

If the user pass nothing, the hidden field isn't created. What do you think @burnt43 ?

[burnt43]

Speaking only for my use case, I can't think of a time where I'd want either:

1. the unchecked_value be anything other than an empty string
2. the unchecked_value to not exist

Adding the unchecked_value would make it more flexible, but I'm not sure if its necessary. I do not know how others are using collection_check_boxes. It seems awkward to have to adding unchecked_value: "" to my collection_check_boxes when I expected this to be the default behavior.

[carloslopes]

@burnt43 I agree with you, if this hidden field doesn't exist the changed could not be saved correctly on server side.

But, I think we should add an option to accept other value for the hidden field.

Can you work on this?

[burnt43]

@carloslopes sorry for the late reply, but yes I can work on this.

[carloslopes]

No problem! :)

[potenza]

@burnt43 @carloslopes I actually ran into this bug for the first time today. I think we should go ahead with @burnt43's original fix and then possibly add the ability to accept a value for the hidden field later.

This would also allow me to release a new version of the gem this week...

[carloslopes]

@potenza ok, go on. The hidden field with an empty value is the default behavior of these types of helpers on rails too.

But, we can open an issue to add this functionality in the future.

The tests are broken too. Will you @potenza or @burnt43 fix them? If you are busy, I can work on them.

[potenza]

@carloslopes sounds good. I can work on this later tonight and then hopefully release a new gem as well.

[carloslopes]

@potenza ok, if you need some help, just ask me!

[potenza]

@carloslopes Thanks! I actually got pulled into something else tonight that I'm still trying to wrap up. Feel like taking care of this one?

[carloslopes]

Of course! But I will work on it tomorrow, ok? It's 00:15hr here in Brazil
now.
On Sep 12, 2014 12:11 AM, "Stephen Potenza" notifications@github.com
wrote:

@carloslopes https://github.com/carloslopes Thanks! I actually got
pulled into something else tonight that I'm still trying to wrap up. Feel
like taking care of this one?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#116 (comment)
.

[potenza]

of course! thanks again.

[carloslopes]

I started work on this today and I found a problem.

The hidden field is generated with the name object[:attribute] but the right is object[:attribute][]. I'm looking for the best way to solve this, instead of create the name by hand.

[potenza]

@carloslopes I tested these changes locally and it seemed to create the correct hidden field for me:

<input id="subscriber_mailing_list_ids" multiple="multiple" name="subscriber[mailing_list_ids][]" type="hidden" value="">

[carloslopes]

@potenza yeah, you are right! I removed that multiple option here and this was causing the missing [] on input name.

My bad!