kotovalexarian-likes-github/rails--rails
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rails/rails.git synced 2022-11-09 12:12:34 -05:00
Code Releases Activity
rails--rails/activerecord/test/models/face.rb

18 lines
765 B
Ruby
Raw Normal View History

Use frozen-string-literal in ActiveRecord
2017-07-09 13:41:28 -04:00
# frozen_string_literal: true
Providing support for :inverse_of as an option to associations. You can now add an :inverse_of option to has_one, has_many and belongs_to associations. This is best described with an example: class Man < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :face, :inverse_of => :man end class Face < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :man, :inverse_of => :face end m = Man.first f = m.face Without :inverse_of m and f.man would be different instances of the same object (f.man being pulled from the database again). With these new :inverse_of options m and f.man are the same in memory instance. Currently :inverse_of supports has_one and has_many (but not the :through variants) associations. It also supplies inverse support for belongs_to associations where the inverse is a has_one and it's not a polymorphic. Signed-off-by: Murray Steele <muz@h-lame.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>
2009-05-01 11:01:13 -04:00
class Face < ActiveRecord::Base
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
belongs_to :human, inverse_of: :face
Set inverse during has one autosave if necessary pair: @rebeldroid12
2020-06-29 16:28:20 -04:00
belongs_to :autosave_human, class_name: "Human", foreign_key: :human_id, inverse_of: :autosave_face
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
belongs_to :super_human, polymorphic: true
belongs_to :polymorphic_human, polymorphic: true, inverse_of: :polymorphic_face
Typo fix [ci skip] `lengh` should be `length`
2015-09-07 11:56:09 -04:00
# Oracle identifier length is limited to 30 bytes or less, `polymorphic` renamed `poly`
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
belongs_to :poly_human_without_inverse, polymorphic: true
Fix comment for "broken" inverse_of associations [ci skip]
2019-05-28 12:12:25 -04:00
# These are "broken" inverse_of associations for the purposes of testing
Rename horrible and dirty to puzzled and confused in test models In 7f938ca the test model `Man` was renamed to `Human`. Maybe this is a good time to also change `horrible_human` and `dirty_human` to `happy_human` and `confused_human`. While this change is mostly cosmetic change, the phrase "dirty man" has a negative meaning. The adjectives "confused" and "puzzled" were chosen because they are used for defining associations with errors.
2020-08-25 11:02:41 -04:00
belongs_to :puzzled_human, class_name: "Human", inverse_of: :puzzled_face
belongs_to :puzzled_polymorphic_human, polymorphic: true, inverse_of: :puzzled_polymorphic_face
Inverse instance should not be reloaded during autosave if called in validation Record saved in save_has_one_association already make call to association.loaded! via record's before_save callback of save_belongs_to_association, but this will reload object if accessed in record's validation.
2017-11-24 07:22:35 -05:00
validate do
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
human
Inverse instance should not be reloaded during autosave if called in validation Record saved in save_has_one_association already make call to association.loaded! via record's before_save callback of save_belongs_to_association, but this will reload object if accessed in record's validation.
2017-11-24 07:22:35 -05:00
end
Providing support for :inverse_of as an option to associations. You can now add an :inverse_of option to has_one, has_many and belongs_to associations. This is best described with an example: class Man < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :face, :inverse_of => :man end class Face < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :man, :inverse_of => :face end m = Man.first f = m.face Without :inverse_of m and f.man would be different instances of the same object (f.man being pulled from the database again). With these new :inverse_of options m and f.man are the same in memory instance. Currently :inverse_of supports has_one and has_many (but not the :through variants) associations. It also supplies inverse support for belongs_to associations where the inverse is a has_one and it's not a polymorphic. Signed-off-by: Murray Steele <muz@h-lame.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>
2009-05-01 11:01:13 -04:00
end
Copy permalink