| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Code such as the following will be corrected.
Developer.where(id: -Float::INFINITY...2).unscope(where: :id)
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The column is primarily used for type casting, which we're trying to
separate from the idea of a column. Since what we really need is the
combination of a name, type, and value, let's use the object that we
already have to represent that concept, rather than this tuple. No
consumers of the bind values have been changed, only the producers
(outside of tests which care too much about internals). This is
*finally* possible since the bind values are now produced from a
reasonable number of lcoations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The only place it was accessed was in tests. Many of them have another
way that they can test their behavior, that doesn't involve reaching
into internals as far as they did. `AssociationScopeTest` is testing a
situation where the where clause would have one bind param per
predicate, so it can just ignore the predicates entirely. The where
chain test was primarly duplicating the logic tested on `WhereClause`
directly, so I instead just make sure it calls the appropriate method
which is fully tested in isolation.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This fixed an issue where `having` can only be called after the last
call to `where`, because it messes with the same `bind_values` array.
With this change, the two can be called as many times as needed, in any
order, and the final query will be correct. However, once something
assigns `bind_values`, that stops. This is because we have to move all
of the bind values from the having clause over to the where clause since
we can't differentiate the two, and assignment was likely in the form
of:
`relation.bind_values += other.bind_values`
This will go away once we remove all places that are assigning
`bind_values`, which is next on the list.
While this fixes a bug that was present in at least 4.2 (more likely
present going back as far as 3.0, becoming more likely in 4.1 and later
as we switched to prepared statements in more cases), I don't think this
can be easily backported. The internal changes to `Relation` are
non-trivial, anything that involves modifying the `bind_values` array
would need to change, and I'm not confident that we have sufficient test
coverage of all of those locations (when `having` was called with a hash
that could generate bind values).
[Sean Griffin & anthonynavarre]
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This object being a black box, it knows the details of how to merge
itself with another where clause. This removes all references to where
values or bind values in `Relation::Merger`
|
|
The way that bind values are currently stored on Relation is a mess.
They can come from `having`, `where`, or `join`. I'm almost certain that
`having` is actually broken, and calling `where` followed by `having`
followed by `where` will completely scramble the binds.
Joins don't actually add the bind parameters to the relation itself, but
instead add it onto an accessor on the arel AST which is undocumented,
and unused in Arel itself. This means that the bind values must always
be accessed as `relation.arel.bind_values + relation.bind_values`.
Anything that doesn't is likely broken (and tons of bugs have come up
for exactly that reason)
The result is that everything dealing with `Relation` instances has to
know far too much about the internals. The binds are split, combined,
and re-stored in non-obvious ways that makes it difficult to change
anything about the internal representation of `bind_values`, and is
extremely prone to bugs.
So the goal is to move a lot of logic off of `Relation`, and into
separate objects. This is not the same as what is currently done with
`JoinDependency`, as `Relation` knows far too much about its internals,
and vice versa. Instead these objects need to be black boxes that can
have their implementations swapped easily.
The end result will be two classes, `WhereClause` and `JoinClause`
(`having` will just re-use `WhereClause`), and there will be a single
method to access the bind values of a `Relation` which will be
implemented as
```
join_clause.binds + where_clause.binds + having_clause.binds
```
This is the first step towards that refactoring, with the internal
representation of where changed, and an intermediate representation of
`where_values` and `bind_values` to let the refactoring take small
steps. These will be removed shortly.
|