See 34321e4a433bb7eef48fd743286601403f8f7d82 for background on
ImmutableString vs String.
Our String type cannot delegate typecasting to ImmutableString, because
the latter freezes its input: duplicating the value after that gives us
an unfrozen result, but still mutates the originally passed object.
In Ruby 2.4, BigDecimal(), as used by the Decimal cast, was changed so
that it will raise ArgumentError when passed an invalid string, in order
to be more consistent with Integer(), Float(), etc. The other numeric
types use ex. to_i and to_f.
Unfortunately, we can't simply change BigDecimal() to to_d. String#to_d
raises errors like BigDecimal(), unlike all the other to_* methods (this
should probably be filed as a ruby bug).
Instead, this simulates the existing behaviour and the behaviour of the
other to_* methods by finding a numeric string at the start of the
passed in value, and parsing that using BigDecimal().
See also
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/102863081a627ce
`ActiveModel::TestCase` is used only for the test of Active Model.
Also, it is a private API and can not be used in applications.
Therefore, it is not necessary to include it in lib.
If a Error object was serialized in the database as YAML in the Rails
4.2 version, if we load in the Rails 5.0 version it will miss the
@details instance variable so methods like #clear and #add will start to
fail.
Now a few tests in ActiveModel rely on Ruby implementation and the fact
that in MRI `97.18` as a float is greater than `97.18` as a BigDecimal.
This is only relevant for MRI. On JRuby, comparing float to BigDecimal
would be conversion of them to the same type and they will be equal.
I'd like the ActiveModel test suite to be Ruby implementation-agnostic.
Here we test ActiveModel, not the Ruby internals.
This PR fixes a couple more JRuby tests.
This removes the following warnings.
```
activemodel/test/cases/type/big_integer_test.rb:15: warning: ambiguous first argument; put parentheses or a space even after `-' operator
```
Regexp#match? should be considered to be part of the Ruby core library. We are
emulating it for < 2.4, but not having to require the extension is part of the
illusion of the emulation.
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
All indentation was normalized by rubocop auto-correct at 80e66cc4d90bf8c15d1a5f6e3152e90147f00772.
But comments was still kept absolute position. This commit aligns
comments with method definitions for consistency.
A few have been left for aesthetic reasons, but have made a pass
and removed most of them.
Note that if the method `foo` returns an array, `foo << 1`
is a regular push, nothing to do with assignments, so
no self required.
