Auditable type in single table inheritance.

[CuriousAnkush]

I am using single table inheritance in rails, and I am auditing the parent class. Whenever, I create/update the child class/model, auditable type for that audit stores the name of the parent class instead of the name of the child class .

Is this feature of audited is intended, or is it just a side effect of SIT. What are the ways in which I could know the more specific auditable type in Single table inheritance?

[jaswinder97]

you can first fetch the record and then retrieve its name as every record of SIT will have unique id.

ChildObject.last.audits.last.auditable.class.name

[vraravam]

@jaswinder97 - I agree with your explanation, but wouldn't this be part of the gem itself? I think @CuriousAnkush (and myself) are asking for the implementation within the gem. If you have a working fork, please post here.

[jaswinder97]

I have a forked version.Will post it today.

On 25 September 2016 at 22:42, Vijay Raghavan Aravamudhan < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@jaswinder97 https://github.com/jaswinder97 - I agree with your explanation, but wouldn't this be part of the gem itself? I think @CuriousAnkush https://github.com/CuriousAnkush (and myself) are asking for the implementation within the gem. If you have a working fork, please post here.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/collectiveidea/audited/issues/227#issuecomment-249433550, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARHmIZPg7UvHyh5O0fsisZTMXLJZuA85ks5qtqtmgaJpZM4FaeCz .

Thanks & Regards, Jaswinder Singh Software Engineer

[vraravam]

@jaswinder97 - ping - could you please post the fork version soon?

[vraravam]

@jaswinder97 - can you please post the forked version? I need to get this solved asap - and would really appreciate your help!

[jaswinder97]

@vijay -Currently I am travelling .Will let you know after reaching my home.

On 10 October 2016 at 21:26, Vijay Raghavan Aravamudhan < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@jaswinder97 https://github.com/jaswinder97 - can you please post the forked version? I need to get this solved asap - and would really appreciate your help!

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/collectiveidea/audited/issues/227#issuecomment-252663595, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARHmIeVxRItfMTWOJxIBEazyn5UYKnF6ks5qymAkgaJpZM4FaeCz .

Thanks & Regards, Jaswinder Singh Software Engineer

[domcleal]

I believe it's the standard Rails behaviour to only store the parent class name in the type field when using STI with polymorphic associations (like audit's associated), per ActiveRecord::Associations: Polymorphic Associations.

Storing the subclass name in the type field can lead to problems using these associations in some versions of Rails, as it always expects the base class there.

[ramfjord]

@jaswinder97 - While it's true that we can join/query the type on the base STI model when we create or update a model, we can't do so after we delete a model. It might be nice to provide a mechanism to remove inheritance_column from the default_ignored_attributes, so we can reconstruct what the type was on a deleted record.

[wynksaiddestroy]

So there's no hope to get a solution like #368 merged?

[drale2k]

Any update on this? In my opinion, identifying the source model should not be dependent on still having access to the record (e.g. after deleting a record)