| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
| |
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14132
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 3420a14590c0e6915d8b6c242887f74adb4120f9, reversing
changes made to afb66a5a598ce4ac74ad84b125a5abf046dcf5aa.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
[ci skip]
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The current code base is not uniform. After some discussion,
we have chosen to go with double quotes by default.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes #24766, #24767
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Daer <jeremydaer@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In order to fix issue #17621 we added a check to validations that
determined if a record should be validated. Based on the existing tests
and behavior we wanted we determined the best way to do that was by
checking if `!record.peristed? || record.changed? || record.marked_for_destruction?`
This change didn't make it into a release until now. When #23790 was
opened we realized that `valid?` and `invalid?` were broken and did not
work on persisted records because of the `!record.persisted?`.
While there is still a bug that #17621 brought up, this change was too
drastic and should not be a RC blocker. I will work on fixing this so
that we don't break `valid?` but also aren't validating parent records
through child records if that parent record is validate false. This
change removes the code changes to validate and the corresponding tests.
It adds tests for two of the bugs found since Rails 5 beta2 release.
Fixes #17621
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fixes #23645
When you're using an `attr_accessor` for a record instead of an
attribute in the database there's no way for the record to know if it
has `changed?` unless you tell it `attribute_will_change!("attribute")`.
The change made in 27aa4dd updated validations to check if a record was
`changed?` or `marked_for_destruction?` or not `persisted?`. It did not
take into account virtual attributes that do not affect the model's
dirty status.
The only way to fix this is to always validate the record if the
attribute does not belong to the set of attributes the record expects
(in `record.attributes`) because virtual attributes will not be in that
hash.
I think we should consider deprecating this particular behavior in the
future and requiring that the user mark the record dirty by noting that
the virtual attribute will change. Unfortunately this isn't easy because
we have no way of knowing that you did the "right thing" in your
application by marking it dirty and will get the deprecation warning
even if you are doing the correct thing.
For now this restores expected behavior when using a virtual attribute
by always validating the record, as well as adds tests for this case.
I was going to add the `!record.attributes.include?(attribute)` to the
`should_validate?` method but `uniqueness` cannot validate a virtual
attribute with nothing to hold on to the attribute. Because of this
`should_validate?` was about to become a very messy method so I decided
to split them up so we can handle it specifically for each case.
|
|
|
|
| |
ActiveModel::Errors
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fixes #17621. This 5 year old (or older) issue causes validations to fire
when a parent record has `validate: false` option and a child record is
saved. It's not the responsibility of the model to validate an
associated object unless the object was created or modified by the
parent.
Clean up tests related to validations
`assert_nothing_raised` is not benefiting us in these tests
Corrected spelling of "respects"
It's better to use `assert_not_operator` over `assert !r.valid`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also prevents the word "Model" from linking to the documentation
of ActiveModel::Model because that's not intended.
[ci skip]
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We have to specify the `:title` option to really use the
`TitleValidator` defined above.
|
| |
|
|\ |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|
|
|
|
| |
their setup in their constructor now.
|
|
|
| |
As discussed with @josevalim on Ruby Rogues Parley.
|
|
|
|
| |
Makes it easier to test its objects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We don't need to define a new method in ActiveMode::Errors for each
validatior.
See
https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/d72a07f1d1478db9daed847eadb35bfd840674f6#commitcomment-2325333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Sometimes, on Mac OS X, programmers accidentally press Option+Space
rather than just Space and don’t see the difference. The problem is
that Option+Space writes a non-breaking space (0XA0) rather than a
normal space (0x20).
This commit removes all the non-breaking spaces inadvertently
introduced in the comments of the code.
|
|
|
|
| |
ArgumentError is better suited than RuntimeError for this.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Conflicts:
activemodel/lib/active_model/secure_password.rb
activerecord/lib/active_record/associations/collection_proxy.rb
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
After a long list of discussion about the performance problem from using varargs and the reason that we can't find a great pair for it, it would be best to remove support for it for now.
It will come back if we can find a good pair for it. For now, Bon Voyage, `#among?`.
|
|
|
|
| |
suggestion!
|
|
|
|
| |
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: Santiago Pastorino <santiago@wyeworks.com>
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|