Should using destroy on AR association collection updates the collection in memory?

Hi,

I’m currently cleaning up my ticket pool and came across one of the ticket regarding the destroyed object. One person has purposed that the destroyed object should be removed from the list, but I don’t see anymore feedback on this. What do you guys think?

The ticket is this one: https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/3288-using-destroy-on-ar-association-collection-updates-the-collection-in-memory

Thank you,

Prem

I'm currently cleaning up my ticket pool and came across one of the ticket
regarding the destroyed object. One person has purposed that the destroyed
object should be removed from the list, but I don't see anymore feedback on
this. What do you guys think?

The patches seem to have gone AWOL, not sure if that was a lighthouse
bug or if the original reporter removed them?

Personally I think there are too many cases where we won't be able to
fix this for us to get too worried about handling this specific case.
AR doesn't try to provide completely transparent mapping of object
graphs to relational databases so there are a tonne of cases which
won't ever be handled such as destroys happening in other processes or
other threads. You can always use pirates(:reload) to force the
collection to be refetched.

Having said *that*, the proposed change to make the association's own
destroy method remove the item from the collection seems pretty
straightforward and assuming it's not too tricky to implement we could
do that.