These two tests currently both define acceptance validators on the same
class, Topic. This means that in either one test or the other, there are
not one but *two* instances of the LazilyDefineAttributes module
builder in the class' ancestors, which can result in unpredictable
results.
Subclassing Topic in each test avoids conflicts.
Since fe9547b6, numericality validator would parse raw value only when a
value came from user to work type casting to a value from database.
But that was caused a regression that the validator would work against
getter value instead of parsed raw value, a getter is sometimes
customized by people. #33550
There we never guarantees that the value before type cast was going to
the used in this validation (actually here is only place that getter
value might not be used), but we should not change the behavior unless
there is some particular reason.
The purpose of fe9547b6 is to work type casting to a value from
database. We could achieve the purpose by using `read_attribute`,
without using getter value.
Fixes#33550.
`BigDecimal.new` has been deprecated in BigDecimal 1.3.3
which will be a default for Ruby 2.5.
Refer 533737338d
```
$ cd rails/activerecord/
$ git grep -l BigDecimal.new | grep \.rb | xargs sed -i -e "s/BigDecimal.new/BigDecimal/g"
```
- Changes made only to Active Record. Will apply the same change to
other module once this commit is merged.
- The following deprecation has not been addressed because it has been
reported at `ActiveRecord::Result.new`. `ActiveRecord::Result.ancestors`
did not show `BigDecimal`.
* Not addressed
```ruby
/path/to/rails/activerecord/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/mysql/database_statements.rb:34:
warning: BigDecimal.new is deprecated
```
* database_statements.rb:34
```ruby
ActiveRecord::Result.new(result.fields, result.to_a) if result
```
* ActiveRecord::Result.ancestors
```ruby
[ActiveRecord::Result,
Enumerable,
ActiveSupport::ToJsonWithActiveSupportEncoder,
Object,
Metaclass::ObjectMethods,
Mocha::ObjectMethods,
PP::ObjectMixin,
ActiveSupport::Dependencies::Loadable,
ActiveSupport::Tryable,
JSON::Ext::Generator::GeneratorMethods::Object,
Kernel,
BasicObject]
```
This commit has been tested with these Ruby and BigDecimal versions
- ruby 2.5 and bigdecimal 1.3.3
```
$ ruby -v
ruby 2.5.0dev (2017-12-14 trunk 61217) [x86_64-linux]
$ gem list |grep bigdecimal
bigdecimal (default: 1.3.3, default: 1.3.2)
```
- ruby 2.4 and bigdecimal 1.3.0
```
$ ruby -v
ruby 2.4.2p198 (2017-09-14 revision 59899) [x86_64-linux-gnu]
$ gem list |grep bigdecimal
bigdecimal (default: 1.3.0)
```
- ruby 2.3 and bigdecimal 1.2.8
```
$ ruby -v
ruby 2.3.5p376 (2017-09-14 revision 59905) [x86_64-linux]
$ gem list |grep -i bigdecimal
bigdecimal (1.2.8)
```
- ruby 2.2 and bigdecimal 1.2.6
```
$ ruby -v
ruby 2.2.8p477 (2017-09-14 revision 59906) [x86_64-linux]
$ gem list |grep bigdecimal
bigdecimal (1.2.6)
```
The implementation of `attribute_method?` on Active Record requires
establishing a database connection and querying the schema. As a general
rule, we don't want to require database connections for any class macro,
as the class should be able to be loaded without a database (e.g. for
things like compiling assets).
Instead of eagerly defining these methods, we do it lazily the first
time they are accessed via `method_missing`. This should not cause any
performance hits, as it will only hit `method_missing` once for the
entire class.
Example:
```ruby
class Person
include ActiveModel::Validations
attr_reader :name, :title
validates_presence_of :name, on: :create
validates_presence_of :title, on: :update
end
person = Person.new
person.valid?([:create, :update]) # => true
person.errors.messages # => {:name=>["can't be blank"], :title=>["can't be blank"]}
```
This reverts commit 51dd2588433457960cca592d5b5dac6e0537feac, reversing
changes made to ecb4e4b21b3222b823fa24d4a0598b1f2f63ecfb.
This broke Active Record tests
Example:
```ruby
class Person
include ActiveModel::Validations
attr_reader :name, :title
validates_presence_of :name, on: :create
validates_presence_of :title, on: :update
end
person = Person.new
person.valid?([:create, :update]) # => true
person.errors.messages # => {:name=>["can't be blank"], :title=>["can't be blank"]}
```
The same is not true of `define_attribute`, which is meant to be the low
level no-magic API that sits underneath. The differences between the two
APIs are:
- `attribute`
- Lazy (the attribute will be defined after the schema has loaded)
- Allows either a type object or a symbol
- `define_attribute`
- Runs immediately (might get trampled by schema loading)
- Requires a type object
This was the last blocker in terms of public interface requirements
originally discussed for this feature back in May. All the
implementation blockers have been cleared, so this feature is probably
ready for release (pending one more look-over by me).
The detection of in-place changes caused a weird unexpected issue with
numericality validations. That validator (out of necessity) works on the
`_before_type_cast` version of the attribute, since on an `:integer`
type column, a non-numeric string would type cast to 0.
However, strings are mutable, and we changed strings to ensure that the
post type cast version of the attribute was a different instance than
the before type cast version (so the mutation detection can work
properly).
Even though strings are the only mutable type for which a numericality
validation makes sense, special casing strings would feel like a strange
change to make here. Instead, we can make the assumption that for all
mutable types, we should work on the post-type-cast version of the
attribute, since all cases which would return 0 for non-numeric strings
are immutable.
Fixes#17852
It's unintuitive to call '#valid?' when you want to run validations but
don't care about the return value.
The alias in ActiveRecord isn't strictly necessary (the ActiveModel
alias is still in effect), but it clarifies.
Change most tests to make use of assert_raise returning the raised
exception rather than relying on a combination of flunk + rescue to
check for exception types/messages.
The `:context` switch feature is implemented in
ActiveRecord::Validations#valid? method, so we should rename the test
names, and execute `valid?` in the test.
Change test name in AR's validations_test.rb
This test is testing save method's code
