| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|\ |
|
| | |
|
|/
|
|
| |
locale [kuboon & Ronak Jangir]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since after 87d1aba3c `dependent: :destroy` callbacks on has_one
assocations run *after* destroy, it is possible that a nullification is
attempted on an already destroyed target:
class Car < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :engine, dependent: :nullify
end
class Engine < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :car, dependent: :destroy
end
> car = Car.create!
> engine = Engine.create!(car: car)
> engine.destroy! # => ActiveRecord::ActiveRecordError: cannot update a
> destroyed record
In the above case, `engine.destroy!` deletes `engine` and *then* triggers the
deletion of `car`, which in turn triggers a nullification of `engine.car_id`.
However, `engine` is already destroyed at that point.
Fixes #21223.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously `has_one` and `has_many` associations were using the
`one` and `many` keys respectively. Both of these keys have special
meaning in I18n (they are considered to be pluralizations) so by
renaming them to `has_one` and `has_many` we make the messages more
explicit and most importantly they don't clash with linguistical
systems that need to validate translation keys (and their
pluralizations).
The `:'restrict_dependent_destroy.one'` key should be replaced with
`:'restrict_dependent_destroy.has_one'`, and
`:'restrict_dependent_destroy.many'` with
`:'restrict_dependent_destroy.has_many'`.
[Roque Pinel & Christopher Dell]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Before this commit, returning `false` in an ActiveRecord `before_` callback
such as `before_create` would halt the callback chain.
After this commit, the behavior is deprecated: will still work until
the next release of Rails but will also display a deprecation warning.
The preferred way to halt a callback chain is to explicitly `throw(:abort)`.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Avoid empty transaction from setting has_one association on new record.
Conflicts:
activerecord/CHANGELOG.md
|
|/ |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 9dc8aef084fc5ae7e3a396dd098d89da93d06fda, reversing
changes made to 02e8dae6279ea25312293a3eca777faf35139c4c.
|
|
|
|
| |
restrict_dependent_destroy errors
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
activerecord/lib/active_record/associations.rb states:
# [association=(associate)]
# Assigns the associate object, extracts the primary key, sets it as the foreign key,
# and saves the associate object.
Since commit 42dd5d9f2976677a4bf22347f2dde1a8135dfbb4 to fix #7191, this
is no longer the case if the associate has changed, but is the same
object. For example:
# Pirate has_one :ship
pirate = Pirate.create!(catchphrase: "A Pirate")
ship = pirate.build_ship(name: 'old name')
ship.save!
ship.name = 'new name'
pirate.ship = ship
That last line should trigger a save. Although we are not changing the
association, the associate (ship) has changed.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Closes #1190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Historically, update_attribute and update_attributes are similar, but
with one big difference: update_attribute does not run validations.
These two methods are really easy to confuse given their similar
names. Therefore, update_attribute is being removed in favor of
update_column.
See the thread on rails-core here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rubyonrails-core/BWPUTK7WvYA
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
the owner from the associated record
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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?.
|
|
|
|
| |
AssociationScope class which is capable of building a scope for any association.
|
|
|
|
| |
callbacks etc) rather than calling a whole bunch of methods with rather long names.
|
|
|
|
| |
'reflection.options' with 'options'. Also add through_options and source_options methods for through associations.
|
|
|
|
| |
proxy type on assignment.
|
|
|
|
| |
accessing the instance variables
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
SingularAssociation
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
back entirely
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
the association, raise an error
|
|
|
|
| |
the new record, so we don't get the database into a pickle
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
be in the scope_for_create hash in the scope
|
| |
|