Should #save also save nested/associated model objects?

[TylerRick]

https://github.com/apotonick/reform/blob/master/lib/reform/form/active_record.rb#L39

    def save(*)
      super.tap do
        model.save unless block_given? # DISCUSS: should we implement nested saving here?
      end
    end

When I tried out https://github.com/gogogarrett/reform_example, I noticed this bug there: when you edit an album and change one of the song titles, those changes are lost — they are not saved!

Since it is so easy to assume that associated model objects are going to be saved, perhaps this method should automatically save them... That would be my vote anyway.

I don't know how hard that would be though. I started adding a test for this in test/active_record_test.rb but then discovered that the test setup only has one ActiveRecord model available — Artist, which doesn't have any has_many association yet...

[apotonick]

Feel free to extend the AR tests!

BTW there's an issue with a discussion on this already. I couldn't find it, thou.

[TylerRick]

Thanks, I'll give it a try...

The closest I've found so far (discussions about nested models) are #33 and #43.

[TylerRick]

Okay, I've attached a pull request (with hub pull-request -i 73). Let me know what you think.

2 questions/concerns so far:

1. Is there a better way to enumerate all nested collection "subforms" besides fields.each_pair?
2. Since this calls save on the nested form, it is up to that form to then persist its own model object. This should happen automatically if you include Reform::Form::ActiveRecord in the collection block. (See Reform::Form::ActiveRecord is not automatically included? #72)

[TylerRick]

Just saw this line in the code. Maybe that's what I was looking for...

mapper.new(@fields).nested_forms do |attr, form|