faustinoaq changed the topic of #amber to: Welcome to Amber Framework community! | https://amberframework.org | Developer happiness, productivity and bare metal performance | GH: https://github.com/amberframework | Docs: https://docs.amberframework.org | Gitter: https://gitter.im/amberframework/amber | IRC Logger: https://irclog.whitequark.org/amber | Amber::Server.start
<FromGitter> <PlayLights_twitter> Let me try
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> idea was to change the adapter to the read one where the `pp` is
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> but dont think it would work as it wouldnt reset the adapter for the other methods :/
_whitelogger has joined #amber
feepbot has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
feepbot has joined #amber
feepbot has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
feepbot has joined #amber
<FromGitter> <PlayLights_twitter> Yea :/, by now I'm having separated models (like: User and UserRO) and instantiate to write one when to want to update it, i was going to ask if is there any way to update something without having the instance
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> could maybe write a method that takes a block
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> ```code paste, see link``` [https://gitter.im/amberframework/amber?at=5d1cc3fb2e3f431763677575]
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> then like
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> ```with_read(User) do ⏎ user = User.first ⏎ end``` [https://gitter.im/amberframework/amber?at=5d1cc41184cbda1764c192b1]
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> something like that?
<FromGitter> <PlayLights_twitter> That's a good idea @Blacksmoke16 but I not sure it would be safe since a lot of concurrency is happening because of the traffic
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> could maybe use `Mutex` in it as well?
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> :shrug:
<FromGitter> <PlayLights_twitter> Yea im going to do some test over it to look the behavior
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> 👍
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> @robacarp Imma fix those flaky tests...
<FromGitter> <Blacksmoke16> i restarted the jobs
<robacarp> ty