- 29 1月, 2015 3 次提交
-
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
Fixes #18717
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
由 Matthew Draper 提交于
Post.where('id = 1').or(Post.where('id = 2')) # => SELECT * FROM posts WHERE (id = 1) OR (id = 2) [Matthew Draper & Gael Muller]
-
- 28 1月, 2015 7 次提交
-
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
`bound_attributes` is now used universally across the board, removing the need for the conversion layer. These changes are mostly mechanical, with the exception of the log subscriber. Additional, we had to implement `hash` on the attribute objects, so they could be used as a key for query caching.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
The column is primarily used for type casting, which we're trying to separate from the idea of a column. Since what we really need is the combination of a name, type, and value, let's use the object that we already have to represent that concept, rather than this tuple. No consumers of the bind values have been changed, only the producers (outside of tests which care too much about internals). This is *finally* possible since the bind values are now produced from a reasonable number of lcoations.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
Attempting to grok this code by refactoring it as I go through it.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
The only place it was accessed was in tests. Many of them have another way that they can test their behavior, that doesn't involve reaching into internals as far as they did. `AssociationScopeTest` is testing a situation where the where clause would have one bind param per predicate, so it can just ignore the predicates entirely. The where chain test was primarly duplicating the logic tested on `WhereClause` directly, so I instead just make sure it calls the appropriate method which is fully tested in isolation.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
The bind values can come from four places. `having`, `where`, `joins`, and `from` when selecting from a subquery that contains binds. These need to be kept in a specific order, since the clauses will always appear in that order. Up until recently, they were not. Additionally, `joins` actually did keep its bind values in a separate location (presumably because it's the only case that people noticed was broken). However, this meant that anything accessing just `bind_values` was broken (which most places were). This is no longer possible, there is only a single way to access the bind values, and it includes joins in the proper location. The setter was removed yesterday, so breaking `+=` cases is not possible. I'm still not happy that `joins` is putting it's bind values on the Arel AST, and I'm planning on refactoring it further, but this removes a ton of bug cases.
-
- 27 1月, 2015 5 次提交
-
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
Contrary to my previous commit message, it wasn't overkill, and led to much cleaner code. [Sean Griffin & anthonynavarre]
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
The last place that was assigning it was when `from` is called with a relation to use as a subquery. The implementation was actually completely broken, and would break if you called `from` more than once, or if you called it on a relation, which also had its own join clause, as the bind values would get completely scrambled. The simplest solution was to just move it into its own array, since creating a `FromClause` class for this would be overkill.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
All of its uses have been moved to better places
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
This fixed an issue where `having` can only be called after the last call to `where`, because it messes with the same `bind_values` array. With this change, the two can be called as many times as needed, in any order, and the final query will be correct. However, once something assigns `bind_values`, that stops. This is because we have to move all of the bind values from the having clause over to the where clause since we can't differentiate the two, and assignment was likely in the form of: `relation.bind_values += other.bind_values` This will go away once we remove all places that are assigning `bind_values`, which is next on the list. While this fixes a bug that was present in at least 4.2 (more likely present going back as far as 3.0, becoming more likely in 4.1 and later as we switched to prepared statements in more cases), I don't think this can be easily backported. The internal changes to `Relation` are non-trivial, anything that involves modifying the `bind_values` array would need to change, and I'm not confident that we have sufficient test coverage of all of those locations (when `having` was called with a hash that could generate bind values). [Sean Griffin & anthonynavarre]
-
- 26 1月, 2015 13 次提交
-
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
We've now removed all uses of them across the board. All logic lives on `WhereClause`.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
The code assumes that non-single-value methods mean multi value methods. That is not the case. We need to change the accessor name, and only assign an array for multi value methods
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
We're still using it in `where_unscoping`, which will require moving additional logic.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
This will make it easy to add `having_clause` and `join_clause` later.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
Yes, I know, I called it a factory so I'm basically the worst person ever who loves Java and worships the Gang of Four.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
Bind values are no longer a thing, so this is unnecessary.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
This object being a black box, it knows the details of how to merge itself with another where clause. This removes all references to where values or bind values in `Relation::Merger`
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
The way that bind values are currently stored on Relation is a mess. They can come from `having`, `where`, or `join`. I'm almost certain that `having` is actually broken, and calling `where` followed by `having` followed by `where` will completely scramble the binds. Joins don't actually add the bind parameters to the relation itself, but instead add it onto an accessor on the arel AST which is undocumented, and unused in Arel itself. This means that the bind values must always be accessed as `relation.arel.bind_values + relation.bind_values`. Anything that doesn't is likely broken (and tons of bugs have come up for exactly that reason) The result is that everything dealing with `Relation` instances has to know far too much about the internals. The binds are split, combined, and re-stored in non-obvious ways that makes it difficult to change anything about the internal representation of `bind_values`, and is extremely prone to bugs. So the goal is to move a lot of logic off of `Relation`, and into separate objects. This is not the same as what is currently done with `JoinDependency`, as `Relation` knows far too much about its internals, and vice versa. Instead these objects need to be black boxes that can have their implementations swapped easily. The end result will be two classes, `WhereClause` and `JoinClause` (`having` will just re-use `WhereClause`), and there will be a single method to access the bind values of a `Relation` which will be implemented as ``` join_clause.binds + where_clause.binds + having_clause.binds ``` This is the first step towards that refactoring, with the internal representation of where changed, and an intermediate representation of `where_values` and `bind_values` to let the refactoring take small steps. These will be removed shortly.
-
- 25 1月, 2015 4 次提交
-
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
This will allow all types which require no additional handling to use prepared statements. Specifically, this will allow for `true`, `false`, `Date`, `Time`, and any custom PG type to use prepared statements. This also revealed another source of nil columns in bind params, and an inconsistency in their use. The specific inconsistency comes from a nested query coming from a through association, where one of the inversed associations is not bi-directional. The stop-gap is to simply construct the column at the site it is being used. This should simply go away on its own once we use `Attribute` to represent them instead, since we already have all of the information we need.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
This is to help facilitate future refactorings, as the internal representation is changed. I'm planning on having `where_values` return an array that's computed on call, which means that mutation will have no affect. This is the only remaining place that was mutating (tested by replacing the method with calling `dup`)
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
Specifically, the issue is relying on `where_unscoping` mutating the where values. It does not, however, mutate the bind values, which could cause an error under certain circumstances. This was not exposed by the tests, since the only place which would have been affected is unscoping a boolean, which doesn't go through prepared statements. I had a hard time getting better test coverage to demonstrate the issue. This in turn, caused `merge` to go through proper logic, and try to clear out the binds associated with the unscoped relation, which then exposed a source of `nil` for the columns, as binds weren't expanding `{ "posts.id" => 1 }` to `{ "posts" => { "id" => 1 } }`. This has been fixed. The bulk of `create_binds` needed to be moved to a separate method, since the dot notation should not be expanded recursively. I'm pretty sure this removes a subtle quirk that a ton of code in `Relation::Merger` is working around, and I suspect that code can be greatly simplified. However, unraveling that rats nest is no small task.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
-
- 24 1月, 2015 1 次提交
-
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
Fixes #18632
-
- 20 1月, 2015 4 次提交
-
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
With the old implementation, the bind values were created, and then we search the attributes for `Relation` objects, and merge them. This completely ignores the order that the actual `where` clause will use. If all non-relation where parameters are before the relations, it will work. However, if we query on both a relation and a value, with the value coming second, it breaks. The order of the hash should not affect the final query (especially since hashes being ordered is an implementation detail)
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
I'm looking to introduce a `WhereClause` class to handle most of this logic, and this method will eventually move over to there. However, this intermediate refactoring should make that easier to do.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
Looking through the blame, this logic used to be when we actually created the bind tuple. My guess is that `nil` couldn't be handled there at that time. It can, now.
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
In order to better facilitate refactoring, most places that mutated `bind_values` have already been removed. One last spot snuck through. Since we're no longer mutating the array, it also does not need to be duped in `initialize_copy`.
-
- 10 1月, 2015 1 次提交
-
-
由 Sean Griffin 提交于
This is cropping up all over the place. After a brief dive, I'm really not sure why we have `arel.bind_values` at all. A cursory grep didn't reveal where they're actually being assigned (it's definitely in AR, not in Arel). I'd like to dig further into it, as I'm fairly certain we don't actually need it, we just need a way for the predicate builder to communicate merged binds upstream. Fixes #18414
-
- 06 1月, 2015 1 次提交
-
-
由 brainopia 提交于
-
- 05 1月, 2015 1 次提交