opensoul.org - User auditing with acts_as_audited Comments

Comment on 'User auditing with acts_as_audited' by Brandon

2007-05-01T20:28:56Z

Ah, yes. The class variable vs. class instance variable problem.

I have tried it with STI, but I wanted all the instances to be audited, so it worked fine for me.

I’ll look into this tonight. Most likely what is happening is that acts_as_audited is using class variables, which are shared throughout the inheritance hierarchy, instead of class instance variables (I wrote the plugin before I had any idea that there was a difference).

Worse, when it creates these audits, the auditable_type is always Membership.

This is actually intended behavior. I’ll need to verify this, but I believe polymorphic associations use the name of the base AR class in STI.

Comment on 'User auditing with acts_as_audited' by Sheldon Hearn

2007-05-01T20:11:04Z

Have you tried acts_as_audited with single table inheritance?

I have an AbstractMembership class, which extends ActiveRecord, is instructed to use the memberships table and is marked abstract. The table has a type column to support STI.

Then I have Membership, NewMembershipRequest, ChangeMembershipRequest and RemoveMembershipRequest, each of which extends AbstractMembership. Only Membership acts_as_audited, but the plugin records audits for the other subclasses of AbstractMembership as well.

Which is weird, I think. Worse, when it creates these audits, the auditable_type is always Membership.

It’s almost like acts_as_audited is digging its claws in too high up the class hierarchy. Any advice?

Comment on 'User auditing with acts_as_audited' by Jodi

2007-01-28T18:26:25Z

Venkat – you may consider using act_as_audited in combination with acts_as_paranoid (which marks but doesn’t actually delete records).

Jodi

Comment on 'User auditing with acts_as_audited' by Venkat

2006-12-24T15:35:22Z

Dear Brandon:

Thanks for the nice plugin. I just played with it a bit.

Here is a suggestion for your consideration. For destroy operation, the plugin doesn’t store anything on the changes column. However for new operation it does store the entire new record. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to keep the destroy and create at the same level so that when I know something got deleted, I know the contents of the deleted record also?

Thanks, Venkat.