| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This commit fixes a regression bug in which counter_cache columns
were not being updated correctly when newly created records were
being pushed into an assocation. EG:
# this was fine
@post.comment.create!
# this was fine
@comment = Comment.first
@post.comments << @comment
# this would not update counters
@post.comments << Comment.create!
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The implementation was using the source class foreign key field instead
of the reflected primary key one to find the old record.
For instance, for this scenario
class Bulb < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :car, :touch => true
end
class Car < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :bulbs
end
the current implementation was trying to do this query:
Car.where(car_id: X).first
where we should be doing this query:
Car.where(id: X).first
This should hopefully fix the build.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
If we don't use inspect inside the class_eval block then the foreign key
is written without quotes causing us to fetch the foreign key value and
not the column name.
|
| |\
| |
| | |
belongs_to :touch should touch old record when transitioning.
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |/
|
|
|
| |
the primary key on an association will make sure that the corresponding
counter on the association is changed properly. Fixes #9722.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If the parent of a `belongs_to` record fails to be saved due to
validation errors, `touch` will be called on a new record, which causes
an exception (see https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/9320).
Example:
class Owner < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :name
end
class Pet < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :owner, touch: true
end
pet = Pet.new(owner: Owner.new)
# Before, this line would raise ActiveRecord::ActiveRecordError
# "can not touch on a new record object"
pet.save
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Method compilation provides better performance and I think the code
comes out cleaner as well.
A knock on effect is that methods that get redefined produce warnings. I
think this is a good thing. I had to deal with a bunch of warnings
coming from our tests, though.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Well, not all of them, but some of them.
I don't think there's much reason for these methods to be private.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
We don't need the complexity of to_sentence, and it shouldn't be a bang
method.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Move the logic for validation check to the same method, and cache
dependent option in a variable to reuse inside the dependency
configuration methods instead of relying on the options hash.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This change uses Module.redefine_method as defined in ActiveSupport.
Making Module.define_method public would be as clean in the code, and
would also emit warnings when redefining an association. That is pretty
messy given current tests, so I'm leaving it for someone else to decide
what approach is better.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of generating association methods directly in the model
class, they are generated in an anonymous module which
is then included in the model class. There is one such module
for each association. The only subtlety is that the
generated_attributes_methods module (from ActiveModel) must
be forced to be included before association methods are created
so that attribute methods will not shadow association methods.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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?.
|
|
|
callbacks etc) rather than calling a whole bunch of methods with rather long names.
|
