Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
PluginAWeek: Talk
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Does state_machine + paper_trail make sense?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Gurpartap Singh  
View profile  
 More options May 23 2012, 9:49 am
From: Gurpartap Singh <gurpar...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 06:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, May 23 2012 9:49 am
Subject: Re: Does state_machine + paper_trail make sense?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Just realized that paper_trail doesn't make the deletes soft but retains
the version in it's separate table. So, whatever, I can live with that.

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:44:24 PM UTC+5:30, Gurpartap Singh wrote:

> I'd also like to add that I mainly want to benefit from paper_trail's soft
> deletes and auditing, instead of version reversion. But I'd like it to be
> possible, which is why I'm asking. :)

> (I know there's an audit-trail gem for state_machine but paper_trail's
> versioning gives an intact snap shot of the object from past.)

> --
> Gurpartap Singh


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google