1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rails/rails.git synced 2022-11-09 12:12:34 -05:00
rails--rails/activerecord/test/cases/database_configurations_test.rb

146 lines
4.6 KiB
Ruby
Raw Normal View History

2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
# frozen_string_literal: true
require "cases/helper"
class DatabaseConfigurationsTest < ActiveRecord::TestCase
unless in_memory_db?
def test_empty_returns_true_when_db_configs_are_empty
old_config = ActiveRecord::Base.configurations
config = {}
ActiveRecord::Base.configurations = config
assert_predicate ActiveRecord::Base.configurations, :empty?
assert_predicate ActiveRecord::Base.configurations, :blank?
ensure
ActiveRecord::Base.configurations = old_config
ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection :arunit
end
end
def test_configs_for_getter_with_env_name
configs = ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.configs_for(env_name: "arunit")
assert_equal 1, configs.size
assert_equal ["arunit"], configs.map(&:env_name)
end
Deprecate `spec_name` and use `name` for configurations I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end. Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually `connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and `spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After 2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing. This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of `name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a less confusing name. `connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to `spec_name`, hence the major confusion. Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that `db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the `connection_specification_name` until #38190. After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.
2020-02-20 14:06:17 -05:00
def test_configs_for_getter_with_name
previous_env, ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = ENV["RAILS_ENV"], "arunit2"
Deprecate `spec_name` and use `name` for configurations I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end. Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually `connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and `spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After 2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing. This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of `name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a less confusing name. `connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to `spec_name`, hence the major confusion. Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that `db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the `connection_specification_name` until #38190. After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.
2020-02-20 14:06:17 -05:00
config = ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.configs_for(name: "primary")
assert_equal "arunit2", config.env_name
Deprecate `spec_name` and use `name` for configurations I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end. Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually `connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and `spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After 2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing. This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of `name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a less confusing name. `connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to `spec_name`, hence the major confusion. Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that `db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the `connection_specification_name` until #38190. After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.
2020-02-20 14:06:17 -05:00
assert_equal "primary", config.name
ensure
ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = previous_env
end
Deprecate `spec_name` and use `name` for configurations I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end. Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually `connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and `spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After 2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing. This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of `name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a less confusing name. `connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to `spec_name`, hence the major confusion. Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that `db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the `connection_specification_name` until #38190. After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.
2020-02-20 14:06:17 -05:00
def test_configs_for_getter_with_env_and_name
config = ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.configs_for(env_name: "arunit", name: "primary")
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
assert_equal "arunit", config.env_name
Deprecate `spec_name` and use `name` for configurations I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end. Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually `connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and `spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After 2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing. This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of `name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a less confusing name. `connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to `spec_name`, hence the major confusion. Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that `db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the `connection_specification_name` until #38190. After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.
2020-02-20 14:06:17 -05:00
assert_equal "primary", config.name
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
end
def test_default_hash_returns_config_hash_from_default_env
original_rails_env = ENV["RAILS_ENV"]
ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = "arunit"
assert_deprecated do
Deprecate `spec_name` and use `name` for configurations I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end. Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually `connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and `spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After 2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing. This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of `name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a less confusing name. `connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to `spec_name`, hence the major confusion. Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that `db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the `connection_specification_name` until #38190. After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.
2020-02-20 14:06:17 -05:00
assert_equal ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.configs_for(env_name: "arunit", name: "primary").configuration_hash, ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.default_hash
end
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
ensure
ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = original_rails_env
end
2020-09-28 10:49:32 -04:00
def test_find_db_config_returns_first_config_for_env
config = ActiveRecord::DatabaseConfigurations.new({
"test" => {
"config_1" => {
2020-09-28 10:49:32 -04:00
"database" => "db"
},
"config_2" => {
2020-09-28 10:49:32 -04:00
"database" => "db"
},
"config_3" => {
2020-09-28 10:49:32 -04:00
"database" => "db"
},
}
})
assert_equal "config_1", config.find_db_config("test").name
end
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
def test_find_db_config_returns_a_db_config_object_for_the_given_env
config = ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.find_db_config("arunit2")
assert_equal "arunit2", config.env_name
Deprecate `spec_name` and use `name` for configurations I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end. Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually `connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and `spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After 2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing. This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of `name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a less confusing name. `connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to `spec_name`, hence the major confusion. Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that `db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the `connection_specification_name` until #38190. After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.
2020-02-20 14:06:17 -05:00
assert_equal "primary", config.name
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
end
def test_find_db_config_prioritize_db_config_object_for_the_current_env
config = ActiveRecord::DatabaseConfigurations.new({
"primary" => {
"adapter" => "randomadapter"
},
ActiveRecord::ConnectionHandling::DEFAULT_ENV.call => {
"primary" => {
"adapter" => "sqlite3",
"database" => ":memory:"
}
}
}).find_db_config("primary")
assert_equal "primary", config.name
assert_equal ActiveRecord::ConnectionHandling::DEFAULT_ENV.call, config.env_name
assert_equal ":memory:", config.database
end
def test_to_h_turns_db_config_object_back_into_a_hash_and_is_deprecated
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
configs = ActiveRecord::Base.configurations
assert_equal "ActiveRecord::DatabaseConfigurations", configs.class.name
assert_deprecated do
assert_equal "Hash", configs.to_h.class.name
assert_equal ["arunit", "arunit2", "arunit_without_prepared_statements"], ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.to_h.keys.sort
end
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
end
end
class LegacyDatabaseConfigurationsTest < ActiveRecord::TestCase
def test_can_turn_configurations_into_a_hash_and_is_deprecated
assert_deprecated do
assert ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.to_h.is_a?(Hash), "expected to be a hash but was not."
assert_equal ["arunit", "arunit2", "arunit_without_prepared_statements"].sort, ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.to_h.keys.sort
end
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
end
def test_deprecated_config_method
Deprecate `spec_name` and use `name` for configurations I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end. Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually `connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and `spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After 2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing. This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of `name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a less confusing name. `connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to `spec_name`, hence the major confusion. Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that `db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the `connection_specification_name` until #38190. After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.
2020-02-20 14:06:17 -05:00
db_config = ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.configs_for(env_name: "arunit", name: "primary")
assert_equal db_config.configuration_hash.stringify_keys, assert_deprecated { db_config.config }
end
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
def test_unsupported_method_raises
assert_raises NoMethodError do
ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.fetch(:foo)
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
end
end
Deprecate `spec_name` and use `name` for configurations I have so. many. regrets. about using `spec_name` for database configurations and now I'm finally putting this mistake to an end. Back when I started multi-db work I assumed that eventually `connection_specification_name` (sometimes called `spec_name`) and `spec_name` for configurations would one day be the same thing. After 2 years I no longer believe they will ever be the same thing. This PR deprecates `spec_name` on database configurations in favor of `name`. It's the same behavior, just a better name, or at least a less confusing name. `connection_specification_name` refers to the parent class name (ie ActiveRecord::Base, AnimalsBase, etc) that holds the connection for it's models. In some places like ConnectionHandler it shortens this to `spec_name`, hence the major confusion. Recently I've been working with some new folks on database stuff and connection management and realize how confusing it was to explain that `db_config.spec_name` was not `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name`. Worse than that one is a symbole while the other is a class name. This was made even more complicated by the fact that `ActiveRecord::Base` used `primary` as the `connection_specification_name` until #38190. After spending 2 years with connection management I don't believe that we can ever use the symbols from the database configs as a way to connect the database without the class name being _somewhere_ because a db_config does not know who it's owner class is until it's been connected and a model has no idea what db_config belongs to it until it's connected. The model is the only way to tie a primary/writer config to a replica/reader config. This could change in the future but I don't see value in adding a class name to the db_configs before connection or telling a model what config belongs to it before connection. That would probably break a lot of application assumptions. If we do ever end up in that world, we can use name, because tbh `spec_name` and `connection_specification_name` were always confusing to me.
2020-02-20 14:06:17 -05:00
def test_spec_name_in_configs_for_is_deprecated
assert_deprecated do
db_config = ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.configs_for(env_name: "arunit", spec_name: "primary")
assert_equal "primary", db_config.name
end
end
def test_spec_name_getter_is_deprecated
db_config = ActiveRecord::Base.configurations.configs_for(env_name: "arunit", name: "primary")
assert_deprecated do
assert_equal "primary", db_config.spec_name
end
end
2019-02-12 15:42:44 -05:00
end