Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
@apauly Thank you for the bug report and the pull request! We quite appreciate the feedback. I can duplicate the issue under Rails 6 now. (Seems to be okay on Rails 5.) I'm not sure that this is the best approach for fixing it, however, as it still makes twice as many queries as it needs to, then throws away half the results. (By the time we get to the I'll open an issue for it (#32) and we'll try to get it to it soonish. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi,
I found the following issue when using
jit_preloader:If multiple records in a collection have the same record set for a
belongs_to, which itself has ahas_manyassociation, thehas_manyassociation will end up having duplicate records assigned. When using ARspreload, there are no duplicate records.I could reproduce this behaviour with a spec and was also able to fix it. However, I'm not 100% sure if my fix will add other side effects if there are actually duplicate records via
has_many through:or similar setups.Maybe somebody else with better understanding of the gem itself can simply tell where to apply a fix without side effects.