I just wasted an absurd amount of time trying to figure out why my model
wasn't being deleted even though I was setting `_destroy` to true like
the instructions said. Making the documentation a little bit clear so
that someone like me doesn't waste their time in future.
Update Active Record's attribute query methods documentation to clarify that whether an attribute is present is based on Object#present?. This gives people a place to go see what the exact definition of presence is. [ci skip]
This bug occurs when an attribute of an ActiveRecord model is an
ActiveRecord::Type::Integer type or a ActiveRecord::Type::Decimal type (or any
other type that includes the ActiveRecord::Type::Numeric module. When the value
of the attribute is negative and is set to the same negative value, it is marked
as changed.
Take the following example of a Person model with the integer attribute age:
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
# age :integer(4)
end
The following will produce the error:
person = Person.new(age: -1)
person.age = -1
person.changes
=> { "age" => [-1, -1] }
person.age_changed?
=> true
The problematic line is here:
module ActiveRecord
module Type
module Numeric
...
def non_numeric_string?(value)
# 'wibble'.to_i will give zero, we want to make sure
# that we aren't marking int zero to string zero as
# changed.
value.to_s !~ /\A\d+\.?\d*\z/
end
end
end
end
The regex match doesn't accept numbers with a leading '-'.
This commit intends to clarify the scope of ActionView::RecordIdentifier
methods `dom_id` and `dom_class`.
Most of the current documentation comes from da257eb8 (7 years ago) when
the decoupling of ActionView, ActiveRecord and ActiveModel was not a concern.
Since then, steps have been taken to reach such decoupling, especially
8ca17926 which duplicated ActionController::ModelNaming into
ActionView::ModelNaming explaining that:
> These are just a simple helpers for decoupling Active Model, so it does not
> make sense to extract it to Active Support, but the point is to decouple also
> Action View and Action Pack
As of today, ActionView::RecordIdentifier only includes `dom_id` and `dom_class`
so it makes sense to explicitly document those two methods, and leaving the
details of helpers like `div_for` in the corresponding files.
Moreover, I think it's important to mention in the documentation that
ActionView::RecordIdentifier **does not strictly depend on the ActiveRecord API**: any class `Post` implementing `post.to_key` and `post.model_name.param_key` will work.
[ci skip]
This commit intends to clarify the scope of ActionView::RecordIdentifier
methods `dom_id` and `dom_class`.
Most of the current documentation comes from da257eb8 (7 years ago) when
the decoupling of ActionView, ActiveRecord and ActiveModel was not a concern.
Since then, steps have been taken to reach such decoupling.
Therefore I think it's important to show that ActionView::RecordIdentifier
**does not strictly depend on the ActiveRecord API**:
any class `Post` implementing `post.to_key` and `post.model_name.param_key`
will work.
This commit adds a test to prove that ActionView::RecordIdentifier methods
can also be used on objects that do not subclass ActiveRecord::Base.
`ActiveRecord::Base#[]` has overhead that was introduced in 4.2. The
`foo["id"]` working with PKs other than ID isn't really a case that we
want to support publicly, but deprecating was painful enough that we
avoid it. `_read_attribute` was introduced as the faster alternative for
use internally. By using that, we can save a lot of overhead. We also
save some overhead by reading the attribute one fewer times in
`stale_state`.
Fixes#18151
If there is a method defined such as `find_and_do_stuff(id)`, which then
gets called on an association, we will perform statement caching and the
parent ID will not change on subsequent calls.
Fixes#18117
Calling `changed_attributes` will ultimately check if every mutable
attribute has changed in place. Since this gets called whenever an
attribute is assigned, it's extremely slow. Instead, we can avoid this
calculation until we actually need it.
Fixes#18029
Changes `rails g model Post user:references` from
def change
create_table :posts do |t|
t.references :user, index: true
end
add_foreign_key :posts, :users
end
to
def change
create_table :posts do |t|
t.references :user, index: true, foreign_key: true
end
end
Changes `rails g migration add_user_to_posts user:references` from
def change
add_reference :posts, :users, index: true
add_foreign_key :posts, :users
end
to
def change
add_reference :posts, :users, index: true, foreign_key: true
end
This has the same comments as 9af90ffa00ba35bdee888e3e1ab775ba0bdbe72c,
however it affects the `add_reference` method, and `t.references` in the
context of a `change_table` block.
There is a lot of duplication of code between creating and updating
tables. We should re-evaluate the structure of this code from a high
level so changes like this don't need to be made in two places. (Note to
self)
Rather than having to do:
create_table :posts do |t|
t.references :user
end
add_foreign_key :posts, :users
You can instead do:
create_table :posts do |t|
t.references :user, foreign_key: true
end
Similar to the `index` option, you can also pass a hash. This will be
passed as the options to `add_foreign_key`. e.g.:
create_table :posts do |t|
t.references :user, foreign_key: { primary_key: :other_id }
end
is equivalent to
create_table :posts do |t|
t.references :user
end
add_foreign_key :posts, :users, primary_key: :other_id
The changes in #18149 added tests for the app generator, but only fixed
it for the plugin generator (I should have let CI finish though I think
it would have failed as an allowed failure).
If the test is interrupted in a way that the teardown block fails to
run, the tests will fail to run until the table is removed manually
without this option.
PG doesn't register it's types using the `int(4)` format that others do.
As such, if we alias `int8` to the other integer types, the range
information is lost. This is fixed by simply registering it separately.
The other option (which I specifically chose to avoid) is to pass the
information of the original type that was being aliased as an argument.
I'd rather avoid that, since an alias should truly be treated the same.
If we need different behavior for a different type, we should explicitly
register it with that, and not have a conditional based on aliasing.
Fixes#18144
[Sean Griffin & ysbaddaden]
