| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 3420a14590c0e6915d8b6c242887f74adb4120f9, reversing
changes made to afb66a5a598ce4ac74ad84b125a5abf046dcf5aa.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Mainly around `nil`
[ci skip]
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The focus of this change is to make the API more accessible.
References to method and classes should be linked to make it easy to
navigate around.
This patch makes exzessiv use of `rdoc-ref:` to provide more readable
docs. This makes it possible to document `ActiveRecord::Base#save` even
though the method is within a separate module
`ActiveRecord::Persistence`. The goal here is to bring the API closer to
the actual code that you would write.
This commit only deals with Active Record. The other gems will be
updated accordingly but in different commits. The pass through Active
Record is not completely finished yet. A follow up commit will change
the spots I haven't yet had the time to update.
/cc @fxn
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This is a small refactoring that simplifies the Active Record specific
lenght validator.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Without this note, someone can misunderstand the usage of validates_presence_of method
add missing note for the validates_presence_of
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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`
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The documentation on `:on` for validations was inconsistent, and most
only referenced the `:create` and `:update` contexts. I fixed those to
be consistent with the documentation on `AM::Validations.validates`,
which seemed to have the best docs.
[ci skip]
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix habtm reflection
Conflicts:
activerecord/CHANGELOG.md
activerecord/lib/active_record/counter_cache.rb
activerecord/lib/active_record/reflection.rb
activerecord/test/cases/reflection_test.rb
|
| |
|
|
| |
- since `Array()` calls `to_ary` or `to_a` on a subject
- the intent is to 'wrap' subject into an array
|
| |
|
|
| |
Would incorrectly add duplicated errors when the association was blank. Bug introduced in 1fab518c6a75dac5773654646eb724a59741bc13.
|
| | |
|
|
|
This allows us to mark the parent object as invalid if all associated objects
in a presence validated association are marked for destruction.
See: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/6812
|
