But if the validation was happening first....then there would be no need to roll anything back, as the commit would not have started....no data would have changed ...and...the InvalidRecord error would still get raised as usual ...
and yes there is something weird happening in my case ....but shhh I'm using continuations - so I shall understand if I get no sympathy :) Thanks for your help with this. On Feb 21, 12:47 am, Caio Chassot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-02-20, at 22:42 , chrisfarms wrote: > > > Thanx for the response... I'm not sure if a failed validation would > > cause a rollback.... since they don't raise an error. Unless you > > called #save!, but if this were the case then failed calls to #save > > would get past the rollback. > > Indeed, I meant save!. > > > I'm throwing errors around during some of my own validations, and I'm > > managing to break the transaction system (it's getting confused > > because it thinks it should rollback - when it shouldn't) > > If you raise within a transaction and don't catch it, it rollsback. > That's how it works. > > Is anything different or specially weird happening in your case? > > > after I looked around a bit I thought that what solves my problem > > [doing validation before starting a transaction], is actually slightly > > cleaner anyway...... unless there is some reason I'm blind to for > > having validation within the transaction? > > You can always call valid? yourself before saving. I guess that's > what you're doing now? > > A good reason to have a validation happen within the transaction is > the save! case mentioned above. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
