Re: might_have , has_many request

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2005/03/01]

From: Tony Bowden
Subject: Re: might_have , has_many request
Date: 19:05 on 01 Mar 2005

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 10:21:18AM -0800, Peter Speltz wrote:
> One thing that doesn't work is when
> you say $obj->add_to_* without the constraint column , the constraint is not
> filled in and that column gets default

Hmmm. That's not meant to happen, and there's code that appears to
handle that case. And t/09 seems to test for this.

>.Similaryly the constraint is not enforced in an add_to_* call. 

Again, there's code to do that. And a test for it.

What version of Class::DBI are you running this against? 

Tony

(message missing)

might_have , has_many request
Peter Speltz 21:25 on 28 Feb 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Tony Bowden 22:08 on 28 Feb 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Peter Speltz 22:42 on 28 Feb 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Cees Hek 22:43 on 28 Feb 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Peter Speltz 23:24 on 28 Feb 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Tony Bowden 09:41 on 01 Mar 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Peter Speltz 18:21 on 01 Mar 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Tony Bowden 19:05 on 01 Mar 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Peter Speltz 19:27 on 01 Mar 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Tony Bowden 22:09 on 01 Mar 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Peter Speltz 22:51 on 01 Mar 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Tony Bowden 23:39 on 01 Mar 2005

Re: might_have , has_many request
Peter Speltz 01:45 on 05 Mar 2005