What is causing this ActiveRecord::ReadOnlyRecord error?

后端 未结 6 675
我寻月下人不归
我寻月下人不归 2020-12-07 08:18

This follows this prior question, which was answered. I actually discovered I could remove a join from that query, so now the working query is

start_cards =          


        
6条回答
  •  伪装坚强ぢ
    2020-12-07 08:57

    Rails 2.3.3 and lower

    From the ActiveRecord CHANGELOG(v1.12.0, October 16th, 2005):

    Introduce read-only records. If you call object.readonly! then it will mark the object as read-only and raise ReadOnlyRecord if you call object.save. object.readonly? reports whether the object is read-only. Passing :readonly => true to any finder method will mark returned records as read-only. The :joins option now implies :readonly, so if you use this option, saving the same record will now fail. Use find_by_sql to work around.

    Using find_by_sql is not really an alternative as it returns raw row/column data, not ActiveRecords. You have two options:

    1. Force the instance variable @readonly to false in the record (hack)
    2. Use :include => :card instead of :join => :card

    Rails 2.3.4 and above

    Most of the above no longer holds true, after September 10 2012:

    • using Record.find_by_sql is a viable option
    • :readonly => true is automatically inferred only if :joins was specified without an explicit :select nor an explicit (or finder-scope-inherited) :readonly option (see the implementation of set_readonly_option! in active_record/base.rb for Rails 2.3.4, or the implementation of to_a in active_record/relation.rb and of custom_join_sql in active_record/relation/query_methods.rb for Rails 3.0.0)
    • however, :readonly => true is always automatically inferred in has_and_belongs_to_many if the join table has more than the two foreign keys columns and :joins was specified without an explicit :select (i.e. user-supplied :readonly values are ignored -- see finding_with_ambiguous_select? in active_record/associations/has_and_belongs_to_many_association.rb.)
    • in conclusion, unless dealing with a special join table and has_and_belongs_to_many, then @aaronrustad's answer applies just fine in Rails 2.3.4 and 3.0.0.
    • do not use :includes if you want to achieve an INNER JOIN (:includes implies a LEFT OUTER JOIN, which is less selective and less efficient than INNER JOIN.)

提交回复
热议问题