One transaction at a time would generallynot lead either to much work or muchbusiness, and besides, a transaction cannot always be completedwhile you wait. The consequence is that we arrive at a num-ber of transactions going on simultaneously. When we nowreach the stage of too much work, then we must find waysand means to supplement our energy. Thus we arrive at amultitude of transactions by means of concerted action.

The unit of our activity is the single transac-tion. The activity of the large'st organisationis but a multiple of the single transaction

You can split transactions among multiple tags or categories and exclude them from reports and the Spending Plan.

I think the problem with after_destroy is that it is triggered before the database commits. This means the change may not yet be seen by other processes querying the database; it also means the change could be rolled back, and never actually commited. Since shrine deletes the attachment in this hook, that would mean it might delete the attachment prematurely, or even delete the attachment when the record never ends up destroyed in the database at all (in case of rollback), which would be bad. For shrine's logic to work as expected here, it really does need to be triggered only after the DB commit in which the model destroy is committed.

If you already have an instance of your model, you can start a transaction and acquire the lock in one go using the following code: book = Book.first book.with_lock do # This block is called within a transaction, # book is already locked. book.increment!(:views) end

after_commit { puts "We're all done!" }

These callbacks are smart enough to run after the final (outer) transaction* is committed. * Usually, there is one real transaction and nested transactions are implemented through savepoints (see, for example, PostgreSQL).

These callbacks are focused on the transactions, instead of specific model actions.

In this case, the worker process query the newly-created notification before main process commits the transaction, it will raise NotFoundError, because transaction in worker process can't read uncommitted notification from transaction in main process.

However, sometimes actions can't be rolled back and it is unfortunately unavoidable. For example, consider when we send emails during the call to process. If we send before saving a record and that record fails to save what do we do? We can't unsend that email.

I too have been confused by behavior like this. Perhaps a clearly defined way to isolate atomic units with synchronous reactivity would help those of us still working through the idiosyncrasies of reactivity.

Allows batch updates by silencing notifications while the fn is running. Example: form.batch(() => { form.change('firstName', 'Erik') // listeners not notified form.change('lastName', 'Rasmussen') // listeners not notified }) // NOW all listeners notified

No need for DatabaseCleaner (rolling back transactions are usually faster than truncate).

transaction calls can be nested. By default, this makes all database statements in the nested transaction block become part of the parent transaction. For example, the following behavior may be surprising: User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Kotori') User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Nemu') raise ActiveRecord::Rollback end end creates both “Kotori” and “Nemu”. Reason is the ActiveRecord::Rollback exception in the nested block does not issue a ROLLBACK. Since these exceptions are captured in transaction blocks, the parent block does not see it and the real transaction is committed.

One workaround is to begin a transaction on each class whose models you alter:

Expert Smart Contract Development Guide for 2019

It seems to me that in considering the purpose of a subset of the entire series of transactions, Justice Paris had in mind the correct test. As this Court said in MacKay v. Canada, 2008 FCA 105 (CanLII) at paragraph 25: The existence of a bona fide non-tax purpose for a series of transactions does not exclude the possibility that the primary purpose of one or more transactions within the series is to obtain a tax benefit.

As Katzen (1980, p. 191) notes in heranalysis of early volumes of thePhilosophical Transac-tions:. . . no attempt is made to give prominence to the author ofthe article . . . there is generally no reference at all to theauthor in the heading that signals a new communication. Ifthe author is referred to in the title, it is likely to be in anoblique form . . . we are at the threshold between anony-mous and eponymous authorship