Today I found a really odd situation while working on a Rails 4 project. I
created a couple of data models having a many-to-many association with
has_many :through in both directions. A bit of code will help clearing up
# app/models/account.rb class Account < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :account_users has_many :users, through: :account_users end # app/models/user.rb class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :account_users has_many :accounts, through: :account_users end
And the join model of course:
# app/models/account_user.rb class AccountUser < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :account belongs_to :user end
Up until now everything's ok. I can access associated records from each
endpoint of the association, and Rails handles the SQL join, like we're all
used to. Hell, I can even create associated records with a single command, and
ActiveRecord creates the intermediate
AccountUser record for me. It's
> account = Account.create(name: "Main") => #<Account id: 1, name: "Main", ...> > account.users.count => 0 > user = account.users.create(name: "johndoe") => #<User id: 1, name: "johndoe", ...> > user.accounts.count => 1
The problem occurs when trying to build the record first in memory, and saving it later:
> user = account.users.build(name: "uglyjoe") => #<User id: nil, name: "uglyjoe", ...> > user.save => true > user.accounts.count => 0
The user record was saved, but it was not associated to the account.
After a while digging, I found this issue on Rails' github repository, and
specifically, this comment. It turns out that in these cases, you need
to specify the
:inverse_of option to the
belongs_to association in the
intermediate join model, in our case, the
# app/models/account_user.rb class AccountUser < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :account belongs_to :user, inverse_of: :account_users end
Note that you only have to specify the inverse on the association that links
with the model being created. If you ever want to create accounts from the
user model, then you also have to specify the inverse to the
:account association. However, my recommendation would be to always specify
the inverse to both associations in a join model like this one.
But wait, there's more
It turns out that the
:inverse_of option is there for even more reasons.
After discovering the solution above, I decided to dig a bit deeper about it,
and I found out that it is always desirable to declare the inverse on all
belongs_to associations. It optimizes the way Rails instantiates
ActiveRecord objects. I won't go through the details, but you can take a look
here, here and
here if you're interested.
By the way, I still don't know why Rails doesn't make all these
goodness work out of the box when it could infer the inverse association in
cases like the one above. I'm sure there must be a reason though.