| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
assert [1, 3].includes?(2) fails with unhelpful "Asserting failed" message
assert_includes [1, 3], 2 fails with "Expected [1, 3] to include 2" which makes it easier to debug and more obvious what went wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Style/SpaceBeforeBlockBraces
Style/SpaceInsideBlockBraces
Style/SpaceInsideHashLiteralBraces
Fix all violations in the repository.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The current code base is not uniform. After some discussion,
we have chosen to go with double quotes by default.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- Remove dead classes / dead code
- Move class definitions to where they are used, don't define in a
shared space
|
|\
| |
| | |
Remove more unused block arguments
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The tests and methods were hard to read with `options[:options]` all
over the place. This refactoring makes the code easier to understand.
The change came out of work for moving the underlying code of controller
tests to integraiton tests.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We should leverage the request / response objects that the superclass
has already allocated for us.
|
|\
| |
| | |
Allow `method: "all"` as a valid routing test option
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This allows the test to mirror the production code, since `via: :all` is
a valid option. The behavior in 4.1 did not actually test that it
matched all verbs, but instead defaulted to testing for "GET". This
implementation aims to better handle the intention of passing "all".
What will actually be asserted doesn't quite match up with the generated
route, since it appears to just not create a constraint on the method.
However, I don't think that we can easily test the lack of that
constraint. Testing each of the main 4 HTTP verbs seems to be a
reasonably close approximation, which should be sufficient for our
needs.
Fixes #18511.
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
ref: https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/18763#issuecomment-72349769
|
|/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Non-kwargs requests are deprecated now.
Guides are updated as well.
`post url, nil, nil, { a: 'b' }` doesn't make sense.
`post url, params: { y: x }, session: { a: 'b' }` would be an explicit way to do the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Hash#keys.each allocates an array of keys; Hash#each_key iterates through the
keys without allocating a new array. This is the reason why Hash#each_key
exists.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
by Active Support)
Selecting which key extensions to include in active_support/rails
made apparent the systematic usage of Object#in? in the code base.
After some discussion in
https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/5ea6b0df9a36d033f21b52049426257a4637028d
we decided to remove it and use plain Ruby, which seems enough
for this particular idiom.
In this commit the refactor has been made case by case. Sometimes
include? is the natural alternative, others a simple || is the
way you actually spell the condition in your head, others a case
statement seems more appropriate. I have chosen the one I liked
the most in each case.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Before this change, assert_recognizes, assert_generates, and
assert_routing raised ActionController::RoutingError when they failed to
recognize the route.
This commit changes them to raise Assertion instead. This aligns with
convention for logical failures, and supports reporting tools that care
about the difference between logical failures and errors e.g. the
summary at the end of a test run.
- Fixes #5899
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In the current router DSL, using the +match+ DSL
method will match all verbs for the path to the
specified endpoint.
In the vast majority of cases, people are
currently using +match+ when they actually mean
+get+. This introduces security implications.
This commit disallows calling +match+ without
an HTTP verb constraint by default. To explicitly
match all verbs, this commit also adds a
:via => :all option to +match+.
Closes #5964
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
PATCH is the correct HTML verb to map to the #update action. The
semantics for PATCH allows for partial updates, whereas PUT requires a
complete replacement.
Changes:
* adds config.default_method_for_update you can set to :patch
* optionally use PATCH instead of PUT in resource routes and forms
* adds the #patch verb to routes to detect PATCH requests
* adds #patch? to Request
* changes documentation and comments to indicate support for PATCH
This change maintains complete backwards compatibility by keeping :put
as the default for config.default_method_for_update.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This fixes a bug that is caused by Resource/SingletonResource mangling resource options when using inline "multi"-resource declarations.
|
|
|
|
| |
There're a lot of places in Rails source code which make a lot of sense to switching to Object#in? or Object#either? instead of using [].include?.
|
|
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: José Valim <jose.valim@gmail.com>
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
autoloading."
Booting a new Rails application does not work after this commit [#5359 state:open]
This reverts commit 38a421b34d0b414564e919f67d339fac067a56e6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
autoloading.
Signed-off-by: José Valim <jose.valim@gmail.com>
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[#4089 state:resolved]
Signed-off-by: Joshua Peek <josh@joshpeek.com>
|