Skip to content

Loading…

should have_many(:x).through(:y) insists on have_many(:y) --- why? #129

Closed
jmuheim opened this Issue · 1 comment

2 participants

@jmuheim

Just out of curiousity:

It seems that should have_many(:x).through(:y) always insists on that there also exists an additional has_many(:y) association. Rails itself doesn't insist on it, so why does Shoulda?

Thanks!

@mike-burns
thoughtbot, inc. member

This is being discussed in thoughtbot/shoulda#213 .

@mike-burns mike-burns closed this
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.