Avoid ActiveRecordExtensions affects AR's belongs_to method.

[machisuke]

Background

ActiveRecord#belongs_to accepts these args. ref

        def belongs_to(name, scope = nil, **options)
          reflection = Builder::BelongsTo.build(self, name, scope, options)
          Reflection.add_reflection self, name, reflection
        end

But , ActiveRecordExtensions drops scope arguments.

active_hash/lib/associations/associations.rb

Lines 6 to 21 in b11cb2e

	def belongs_to(name, scope = nil, **options)
	options = {:class_name => name.to_s.camelize }.merge(options)
	klass =
	begin
	options[:class_name].constantize
	rescue
	nil
	rescue LoadError
	nil
	end
	if klass && klass < ActiveHash::Base
	belongs_to_active_hash(name, options)
	else
	super(name, **options)
	end
	end

Changes

In this PR, by calling super with no arguments, all arguments including scope are passed to super.

[machisuke]

Resolved by #256

details

Wow.
It turns out that running certain test cases together causes an error.

⚠️ active-hash does not support testing with activerecord v7. You should change gemfile like this if you try the below code.

$ git diff
diff --git a/Gemfile b/Gemfile
index 8a435c8..d88d4fb 100644
--- a/Gemfile
+++ b/Gemfile
@@ -16,4 +16,4 @@ platforms :ruby do
   gem 'sqlite3', '~> 1.4.0'
 end

-gem 'activerecord', '>= 5.0.0'
+gem 'activerecord', '>= 5.0.0', '< 7.0'

$ ruby -v
ruby 3.1.2p20 (2022-04-12 revision 4491bb740a) [arm64-darwin21]

$ cat Gemfile.lock | grep activerecord
    activerecord (6.1.6.1)
  activerecord (>= 5.0.0)
  activerecord-jdbcsqlite3-adapter (>= 1.3.6)

$ bundle exec rspec ./spec/associations/active_record_extensions_spec.rb:138
Run options: include {:locations=>{"./spec/associations/active_record_extensions_spec.rb"=>[138]}}
.

Finished in 1.2 seconds (files took 3.8 seconds to load)
1 example, 0 failures

$ bundle exec rspec spec/active_hash/base_spec.rb:1287 ./spec/associations/active_record_extensions_spec.rb:138
Run options: include {:locations=>{"./spec/active_hash/base_spec.rb"=>[1287], "./spec/associations/active_record_extensions_spec.rb"=>[138]}}
.F

Failures:

  1) ActiveHash::Base active record extensions ActiveHash::Associations::ActiveRecordExtensions#belongs_to doesn't interfere with AR's procs in belongs_to methods
     Failure/Error: return super unless respond_to? method_name

     NoMethodError:
       undefined method `current_scope' for Country:Class
     # ./lib/active_hash/base.rb:259:in `method_missing'
     # ./vendor/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-6.1.6.1/lib/active_record/associations/association.rb:100:in `scope'
     # ./vendor/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-6.1.6.1/lib/active_record/associations/association.rb:218:in `find_target'
     # ./vendor/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-6.1.6.1/lib/active_record/associations/singular_association.rb:39:in `find_target'
     # ./vendor/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-6.1.6.1/lib/active_record/associations/association.rb:174:in `load_target'
     # ./vendor/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-6.1.6.1/lib/active_record/associations/association.rb:67:in `reload'
     # ./vendor/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-6.1.6.1/lib/active_record/associations/singular_association.rb:9:in `reader'
     # ./vendor/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-6.1.6.1/lib/active_record/associations/builder/association.rb:103:in `country'
     # ./spec/associations/active_record_extensions_spec.rb:147:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>'

Finished in 0.16575 seconds (files took 0.43094 seconds to load)
2 examples, 1 failure

Failed examples:

rspec ./spec/associations/active_record_extensions_spec.rb:138 # ActiveHash::Base active record extensions ActiveHash::Associations::ActiveRecordExtensions#belongs_to doesn't interfere with AR's procs in belongs_to methods

[kbrock]

I'm trying to think about the use case here.

I've only used a where scope in those instances. In your code, what do you put into the scope (that we were dropping and you added back?)

[kbrock]

does this still work if someone puts a where here?

[machisuke]

@kbrock

I've only used a where scope in those instances. In your code, what do you put into the scope (that we were dropping and you added back?)

In our use case, we have a feature that automatically decrypts the contents when a column is loaded. That process can take a long time, and we are optimizing performance by skipping that process by not loading unnecessary columns. We use select to achieve this.

does this still work if someone puts a where here?

Sure. I searched and thought it would be more common for use cases to use "where" in scope, so I modified the test to use "where" as well. What do you think? 20cb9bc

This is the search results.
https://github.com/search?l=Ruby&q=belongs_to%3A+lambda&type=Code

[kbrock]

Thanks @machisuke
I understand your use case. I worked on one project that was similar to that. (your example helped with my memory)

The where clauses on the scope makes a ton of sense. Wise to put that into the test case.

[kbrock]

This change is minor and the tests suggest that it does not have many (any?) side effects.

Anyone else have an opinion?

[kbrock]

Can you rebase the 256 PR code out of here?
Or do you need that to make these tests pass?

[machisuke]

@kbrock
Actually, this PR needs #256.
Without #256, executing both spec/active_hash/base_spec.rb:1287 and. ./spec/associations/active_record_extensions_spec.rb:138 in a single process causes an error.

The detail is here

[kbrock]

@machisuke thanks

If you could rebase this on master (to remove #256) that would be great.

[machisuke]

@kbrock
Sure.

[kbrock]

@machisuke thanks

I merge another and introduced a conflict for this. sorry.

Please let me know if I introduced a mistake while resolving this merge or introduced something that you did not want.