Search Results

Search found 81 results on 4 pages for 'dmitriy k'.

Page 4/4 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 

• Netbeans weird quote behaviors

  - by Dmitriy Likhten

  I've been having trouble with the latest netbeans ruby ide. Here is the weird behavior: "|" = my cursor some text |here I try to add a single quote. Expected: some text '|here However I get some text h'|ere It's worse when there is a linebreak: some text here | some other text here turns into some text here '| some other text here Am I hitting some weird behavior of netbeans that can be turned off for this? I mean it is insanely annoying.

  Read the article

• Is it possible to change names of Doxygen generated html files?

  - by Dmitriy

  We are going to publish API documentation on our web site. The documentation is generated by Doxygen from sources. The problem is that Doxygen generate weird file names (which is no so good for SEO). For example, for source file RO4_Languages.h Doxygen generate _r_o4___languages_8h.htm. Is it possible to change name of generated files? PS: I know that it possible to change output using 3rd party tools/scripts (awk/sed/perl/etc).

  Read the article

• ActiveRecord bug? Or am I getting it wrong? (validates_presence_of if)

  - by Dmitriy Likhten

  Ok: User attr_accessible :name, :email, :email_confirmation validates_presence_of :email_confirmation if :email_changed? What happens in the following situation: u = User.find 1 u.name = 'Fonzi' u.name_changed? # => true u.email_changed? # => false u.valid? # => false : email_confirmation is required Basically, if I change if to unless the validates works as expected, won't validate if the email has not changed, will validate if the email changed. I thought the IF indicates "run this validation if the following function returns true. Seems to work backwards!? Am I just getting it wrong?

  Read the article

• fields_for to stop pluralizing.

  - by Dmitriy Likhten

  I have a fields_for tag, where I specify the prefix (lets say for some good reasons), and this is supposed to represent a one-to-one relationship. I am trying to represent a relationship widget has_many thingamagigs thingamagig has_one whatchamacallit The field_for code is: fields_for "widgt[thingamagigs_attributes][][whatchamacallit_attributes]", thingamagig.whatchamacallit do |x| which generates names (wrongly): widget[thingamagigs_attributes][][whatchamacallit_attributes][][value] The better solution would be t.fields_for :whatchamacallit do |x| where t = fields_for the thingamagig... However if I do that, the following names are generated widgt[thingamagigs_attributes][whatchamacallit_attributes][] which is completely wrong as all other fields for a thingamagig is... widgt[thingamagigs_attributes][][name] So in all cases I am screwed. The original field_for using a string cannot be used with accepts_nested_attributes_for :whatchamacallit since whatchamacallit is a singular relationship and an object is expected not an array. The second fields_for will simply not work because rails cannot parse the params object correctly. Is there a way to tell the first forms_for to not add the [] after [whatchamacallit_attributes] in all field names?

  Read the article

• ActiveRecord validates... custom field name.

  - by Dmitriy Likhten

  I would like to fix up some error messages my site generates. Here is the problem: class Brand < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :foo ... end My goal is to make a message "Ticket description is required" instead of "Foo is required" or may not be blank, or whatever. The reason this is so important is because lets say previously the field was ticket_summary. That was great and the server was coded to use that, but now due to crazy-insane business analysts it has been determined that ticket_summary is a poor name, and should be ticket_description. Now I don't necessarily want to have my db be driven by the user requirements for field names, especially since they can change frequently without functionality changes. Is there a mechanism for providing this already?

  Read the article

• Hashes vs Numeric id's

  - by Karan Bhangui

  When creating a web application that some how displays the display of a unique identifier for a recurring entity (videos on YouTube, or book section on a site like mine), would it be better to use a uniform length identifier like a hash or the unique key of the item in the database (1, 2, 3, etc). Besides revealing a little, what I think is immaterial, information about the internals of your app, why would using a hash be better than just using the unique id? In short: Which is better to use as a publicly displayed unique identifier - a hash value, or a unique key from the database? Edit: I'm opening up this question again because Dmitriy brought up the good point of not tying down the naming to db specific property. Will this sort of tie down prevent me from optimizing/normalizing the database in the future? The platform uses php/python with ISAM /w MySQL.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4