17223 0 true 2008-11-01T23:03:16-04:00 7319 106 should_allow_attributes 27780 5807 committed should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-31T16:00:47-05:00 17223 Joe Ferris François Beausoleil Joe Ferris http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 This is the reverse of should_protect_attributes. The use case is for ensuring account_id is protected, while account is open: @@@ ruby class User < AR::B belongs_to :account attr_accessible :account end class UserTest < T::U::TC should_protect_attributes :account_id should_allow_attributes :account end @@@ See the should_allow_attributes branch on francois' fork: http://github.com/francois/shoulda/tree/should_allow_attributes Tests included! This is the reverse of should_protect_attributes. The use case is for ensuring account_id is protected, while account is open: @@@ ruby class User < AR::B belongs_to :account attr_accessible :account end class UserTest < T::U::TC should_protect_attributes :account_id should_allow_attributes :account end @@@ See the should_allow_attributes branch on francois' fork: http://github.com/francois/shoulda/tree/should_allow_attributes Tests included! <div><p>This is the reverse of should_protect_attributes. The use case is for ensuring account_id is protected, while account is open:</p> <pre><code class="ruby"> class User &lt; AR::B belongs_to :account attr_accessible :account end class UserTest &lt; T::U::TC should_protect_attributes :account_id should_allow_attributes :account end </code></pre> <p>See the should_allow_attributes branch on francois' fork: <a href="http://github.com/francois/shoulda/tree/should_allow_attributes">http://github.com/francois/shoul...</a></p> <p>Tests included!</p></div> 13443 0 This is the reverse of should_protect_attributes. The use case is for ensuring account_id is protected, while account is open: @@@ ruby class User < AR::B belongs_to :account attr_accessible :account end class UserTest < T::U::TC should_protect_attributes :account_id should_allow_attributes :account end @@@ See the should_allow_attributes branch on francois' fork: http://github.com/francois/shoulda/tree/should_allow_attributes Tests included! <div><p>This is the reverse of should_protect_attributes. The use case is for ensuring account_id is protected, while account is open:</p> <pre><code class="ruby"> class User &lt; AR::B belongs_to :account attr_accessible :account end class UserTest &lt; T::U::TC should_protect_attributes :account_id should_allow_attributes :account end </code></pre> <p>See the should_allow_attributes branch on francois' fork: <a href="http://github.com/francois/shoulda/tree/should_allow_attributes">http://github.com/francois/shoul...</a></p> <p>Tests included!</p></div> false 2008-11-01T23:03:17-04:00 7319 --- {} 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2008-11-01T23:03:22-04:00 7319 François Beausoleil François Beausoleil Tammer Saleh http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 13443 0 +1 <div><p>+1</p></div> false 2009-01-10T07:45:25-05:00 7319 --- {} 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-10T07:45:28-05:00 20836 Lawrence Pit François Beausoleil Tammer Saleh http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 13443 0 Though perhaps rename to something like should_allow_mass_updates_for :title, :description, :ssn ? <div><p>Though perhaps rename to something like should_allow_mass_updates_for :title, :description, :ssn ?</p></div> false 2009-01-10T10:00:04-05:00 7319 --- {} 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-10T10:00:07-05:00 20836 Lawrence Pit François Beausoleil Tammer Saleh http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 13443 0 #should_protect_attributes is the converse. So why go with something very dissimilar? Or would you prefer #should_not_allow_mass_updates? <div><h1>should_protect_attributes is the converse. So why go with something very dissimilar?</h1> <p>Or would you prefer #should_not_allow_mass_updates?</p></div> false 2009-01-10T18:32:27-05:00 7319 --- {} 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-10T18:32:32-05:00 7319 François Beausoleil François Beausoleil Tammer Saleh http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 13443 0 Yes. I'd prefer should_allow_mass_updates and should_not_allow_mass_updates. <div><p>Yes. I'd prefer should_allow_mass_updates and should_not_allow_mass_updates.</p></div> false 2009-01-10T20:08:30-05:00 7319 --- {} 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-11T13:14:49-05:00 20836 Lawrence Pit François Beausoleil Tammer Saleh http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 13443 0 I think "mass assignment" is probably the correct term. Here are some ideas for possible name replacements, _if we go there._ **Idea A:** should_allow_mass_assignment_of(*attributes) should_not_allow_mass_assignment_of(*attributes) **Idea B:** should_mass_assign(*attributes) should_not_mass_assign(*attributes) I think (A) is the most explicit, but a bit verbose. There's another twist on this topic. Consider what good might come from a method signature named: should_only_allow_mass_assignment_of(*attributes) <div><p>I think "mass assignment" is probably the correct term. Here are some ideas for possible name replacements, <em>if we go there.</em></p> <p><strong>Idea A:</strong></p> <pre> <code>should_allow_mass_assignment_of(*attributes) should_not_allow_mass_assignment_of(*attributes) </code> </pre> <p><strong>Idea B:</strong></p> <pre> <code>should_mass_assign(*attributes) should_not_mass_assign(*attributes) </code> </pre> <p>I think (A) is the most explicit, but a bit verbose.</p> <p>There's another twist on this topic. Consider what good might come from a method signature named:</p> <pre> <code>should_only_allow_mass_assignment_of(*attributes) </code> </pre></div> false 2009-01-10T22:16:23-05:00 7319 --- {} 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-11T13:16:27-05:00 12160 Ryan McGeary François Beausoleil Tammer Saleh http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 13443 0 I don't mind verbosity in the case of shoulda macro names. It's no more verbose than what you would normally give as the string message to the should method, e.g.: @@@ ruby should "allow mass assignment" do etc. end @@@ <div><p>I don't mind verbosity in the case of shoulda macro names. It's no more verbose than what you would normally give as the string message to the should method, e.g.:</p> <pre><code class="ruby"> should &quot;allow mass assignment&quot; do etc. end </code></pre></div> false 2009-01-12T01:37:17-05:00 7319 --- {} 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-12T01:37:23-05:00 20836 Lawrence Pit François Beausoleil Tammer Saleh http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 0 +1 for should_(not)_allow_mass_assignment_of verbosity is fine for these macros, as you really don't type them often. I don't think should_only_allow_mass_assignment_of is a good replacement for these macros, as that would require a test update with every added column. On the other hand, that might be a good additional macro for the paranoid. It'd be easy to write, once we have the other two macros in place. <div><p>+1 for should<em>(not)</em>allow_mass_assignment_of</p> <p>verbosity is fine for these macros, as you really don't type them often.</p> <p>I don't think should_only_allow_mass_assignment_of is a good replacement for these macros, as that would require a test update with every added column. On the other hand, that might be a good additional macro for the paranoid. It'd be easy to write, once we have the other two macros in place.</p></div> false 2009-01-12T11:44:10-05:00 7319 --- :assigned_user: 13443 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-12T11:44:16-05:00 13443 Tammer Saleh François Beausoleil http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 0 Cool. We're in agreement. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply `should_only_allow_mass_assigment` could replace the other macros. Just food for thought. Re-reading, I see how I could have qualified it better. <div><p>Cool. We're in agreement. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply <code>should_only_allow_mass_assigment</code> could replace the other macros. Just food for thought. Re-reading, I see how I could have qualified it better.</p></div> false 2009-01-12T11:54:27-05:00 7319 --- {} 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-12T11:54:30-05:00 12160 Ryan McGeary François Beausoleil http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 0 Renamed #should_allow_attributes to #should_allow_mass_assignment_of, as well as #should_protect_attributes to #should_not_allow_mass_assignment_of. Added deprecation notices with a link to this ticket. Please pull from http://github.com/francois/shoulda/tree/should_allow_attributes Remote: git://github.com/francois/shoulda.git Branch: should_allow_attributes <div><p>Renamed #should_allow_attributes to #should_allow_mass_assignment_of, as well as #should_protect_attributes to #should_not_allow_mass_assignment_of.</p> <p>Added deprecation notices with a link to this ticket.</p> <p>Please pull from <a href="http://github.com/francois/shoulda/tree/should_allow_attributes">http://github.com/francois/shoul...</a></p> <p>Remote: git://github.com/francois/shoulda.git Branch: should_allow_attributes</p></div> false 2009-01-20T11:51:10-05:00 7319 --- :title: "#should_allow_attributes" 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-20T11:51:13-05:00 7319 François Beausoleil François Beausoleil http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 17223 0 I created a branch in which should_protect_attributes is deprecated in favor of should_not_allow_mass_assignment_of and added should_allow_mass_assignment_of: http://github.com/thoughtbot/shoulda/tree/mass-assignment (this branch is compatible with the new matcher interfaces) <div><p>I created a branch in which should_protect_attributes is deprecated in favor of should_not_allow_mass_assignment_of and added should_allow_mass_assignment_of: <a href="http://github.com/thoughtbot/shoulda/tree/mass-assignment">http://github.com/thoughtbot/sho...</a></p> <p>(this branch is compatible with the new matcher interfaces)</p></div> false 2009-01-29T21:12:22-05:00 7319 --- :assigned_user: 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 new should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-29T21:12:24-05:00 17223 Joe Ferris François Beausoleil Joe Ferris http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106 17223 0 true 2009-01-31T16:00:43-05:00 7319 --- :state: new 106 should_allow_attributes 0 5807 committed should_allow_attributes should_protect_attributes 2009-01-31T16:00:47-05:00 17223 Joe Ferris François Beausoleil Joe Ferris http://thoughtbot.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5807/tickets/106