| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
assert [1, 3].includes?(2) fails with unhelpful "Asserting failed" message
assert_includes [1, 3], 2 fails with "Expected [1, 3] to include 2" which makes it easier to debug and more obvious what went wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
"models/comment"`
to address BasicsTest#test_readonly_attributes failure #26368
It reproduces only when both of these conditions are satisfied:
- Other test files `autosave_association_test.rb` or `where_test.rb`
which executes `require "models/comment"` then `require "models/post"`
- When `autosave_association_test.rb` or `where_test.rb` executed before `base_test.rb`
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If handled as an associated predicate even though a table has the
column, will generate invalid SQL by valid column name treated as a
table name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Style/SpaceBeforeBlockBraces
Style/SpaceInsideBlockBraces
Style/SpaceInsideHashLiteralBraces
Fix all violations in the repository.
|
|
|
|
| |
test cases
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The current code base is not uniform. After some discussion,
we have chosen to go with double quotes by default.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
- The negative scenario test case was missing earlier.
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
phuibonhoa/phuibonhoa/polymorphic_where_multiple_types
Fixed `where` for polymorphic associations when passed an array containing different types.
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
different types.
When passing in an array of different types of objects to `where`, it would only take into account the class of the first object in the array.
PriceEstimate.where(estimate_of: [Treasure.find(1), Car.find(2)])
# => SELECT "price_estimates".* FROM "price_estimates"
WHERE ("price_estimates"."estimate_of_type" = 'Treasure' AND "price_estimates"."estimate_of_id" IN (1, 2))
This is fixed to properly look for any records matching both type and id:
PriceEstimate.where(estimate_of: [Treasure.find(1), Car.find(2)])
# => SELECT "price_estimates".* FROM "price_estimates"
WHERE (("price_estimates"."estimate_of_type" = 'Treasure' AND "price_estimates"."estimate_of_id" = 1)
OR ("price_estimates"."estimate_of_type" = 'Car' AND "price_estimates"."estimate_of_id" = 2))
|
|/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
AR::Relation#or
- Previously it used to show error message
<"undefined method `limit_value' for {:title=>\"Rails\"}:Hash">
- Now it shows following error message.
>> Post.where.not(name: 'DHH').or(name: 'Tenderlove')
ArgumentError: You have passed Hash object to #or. Pass an ActiveRecord::Relation object instead.
- Fixes #23714.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This still isn't as separated as I'd like, but it at least moves most of
the burden of alias mapping in one place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The code that set the from clause was removed in
bdc5141652770fd227455681cde1f9899f55b0b9. I did not give any reason for
doing so. My assumption was that I intended to change it to use the
clause objects, but forgot. We appeared to not have test coverage for
this case.
Fixes #22996
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When you are using scopes and you chaining these scopes it is hard to
know which are the values that are incompatible. This way you can read
the message and know for which values you need to look for.
[Herminio Torres]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 5d41cb3bfd6b19833261622ce5d339b1e580bd8b.
This implementation does not properly handle cases involving predicates
which are not associated with a bind param. I have the fix in mind, but
don't have time to implement just yet. It will be more similar to #22823
than not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
While the predicates are an arel equality node where the left side is a
full arel attribute, the binds just have the name of the column and
nothing else. This means that while splitting the predicates can include
the table as a factor, the binds cannot. It's entirely possible that we
might be able to have the bind params carry a bit more information (I
don't believe the name is used for anything but logging), and that is
probably a worthwhile change to make in the future.
However the simplest (and likely slightly faster) solution is to simply
use the indices of the conflicts in both cases. This means that we only
have to compute the collision space once, instead of twice even though
we're doing an additional array iteration. Regardless, this method isn't
a performance hotspot.
Close #22823.
[Ben Woosley & Sean Griffin]
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It appears that I missed this one when I delegated all the non-mutation
array methods that were not on Enumerable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As was pointed out by #17128, our blacklist of mutation methods was
non-exhaustive (and would need to be kept up to date with each new
version of Ruby). Now that `Relation` includes `Enumerable`, the number
of methods that we actually need to delegate are pretty small. As such,
we can change to explicitly delegating the few non-mutation related
methods that `Array` has which aren't on `Enumerable`
|
|
|
|
| |
This commit follows up of 6a6dbb4c51fb0c58ba1a810eaa552774167b758a.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
[#20473]
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Was left in adfab2dcf4003ca564d78d4425566dd2d9cd8b4f
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
See #9683 for the reasons we switched to `distinct`.
Here is the discussion that triggered the actual deprecation #20198.
`uniq`, `uniq!` and `uniq_value` are still around.
They will be removed in the next minor release after Rails 5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When set to an integer, a warning will be logged whenever a result set
larger than the specified size is returned by a query. Fixes #16463
The warning is outputed a module which is prepended in an initializer,
so there will be no performance impact if
`config.active_record.warn_on_records_fetched_greater_than` is not set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
While we query the proper columns, we go through normal handling for
converting the value to a primitive which assumes it should use the
table's primary key. If the association specifies a different value (and
we know that we're working with an association), we should use the
custom primary key instead.
Fixes #18813.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post.where('id = 1').or(Post.where('id = 2'))
# => SELECT * FROM posts WHERE (id = 1) OR (id = 2)
[Matthew Draper & Gael Muller]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
`bound_attributes` is now used universally across the board, removing
the need for the conversion layer. These changes are mostly mechanical,
with the exception of the log subscriber. Additional, we had to
implement `hash` on the attribute objects, so they could be used as a
key for query caching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Contrary to my previous commit message, it wasn't overkill, and led to
much cleaner code.
[Sean Griffin & anthonynavarre]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The last place that was assigning it was when `from` is called with a
relation to use as a subquery. The implementation was actually
completely broken, and would break if you called `from` more than once,
or if you called it on a relation, which also had its own join clause,
as the bind values would get completely scrambled. The simplest solution
was to just move it into its own array, since creating a `FromClause`
class for this would be overkill.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
With the old implementation, the bind values were created, and then we
search the attributes for `Relation` objects, and merge them. This
completely ignores the order that the actual `where` clause will use. If
all non-relation where parameters are before the relations, it will
work. However, if we query on both a relation and a value, with the
value coming second, it breaks. The order of the hash should not affect
the final query (especially since hashes being ordered is an
implementation detail)
|