Integrate versioning into AR touch method by westonganger · Pull Request #1063 · paper-trail-gem/paper_trail

westonganger · 2018-03-13T23:22:35Z

westonganger · 2018-03-13T23:26:23Z

Something to consider with this PR is the following lines:

https://github.com/westonganger/paper_trail/blob/7dafd009716bfcef760e26bfa45f6274a2caf0bb/lib/paper_trail/model_config.rb#L203-L208

Currently it will attach to the touch event always. Maybe this should be added as one of the available :on events and it included by default or must be specified?

jaredbeck

Looking good. Should we deprecate touch_with_version?

jaredbeck · 2018-03-14T19:51:24Z

        public_send("on_#{event}")
      end
+
+      public_send("on_touch")


I think you can just call on_touch here, right? The public_send is not necessary.

jaredbeck · 2018-03-14T19:55:18Z

Currently it will attach to the touch event always. Maybe this should be added as one of the available :on events and it included by default or must be specified?

Good thinking. I think the callback should be installed by default, but configurable via the :on option.

jaredbeck · 2018-03-14T19:56:28Z

This will need a changelog entry and probably some significant changes to documentation in comments and in the readme.

westonganger · 2018-03-14T19:57:17Z

I guess touch_with_version could be deprecated. Should that be a part of a separate PR? or would you want to do this yourself?

westonganger · 2018-03-14T20:50:17Z

Okay the following items have been added to this PR:

Add touch to list of :on events (by default it is included)
Deprecate touch_with_version
Updated changelog
Updated readme documentation to use touch instead of touch_with_version

jaredbeck · 2018-03-14T22:11:33Z

-    # @api public
+    # @deprecated
    def touch_with_version(name = nil)
+      ::ActiveSupport::Deprecation.warn(DPR_TOUCH_WITH_VERSION, caller(1))


Nice deprecation implementation

jaredbeck · 2018-03-14T22:12:53Z

    # https://github.com/airblade/paper_trail/pull/899
    #
-    # Event can be any of the three (create, update, destroy).
+    # Event can be any of the following (create, update, destroy, touch).


"touch" is not an event. There are still only three events: create, update, and destroy. touch will cause the insertion of an "update" event. See record_update.

I think this will be confusing to many people, and I'm wondering how we can document it better.

Well should we make touch an event? I would simply add another optional argument to record_update(force:, in_after_callback:, event: "update") or add a record_touch method.

Otherwise I can simply add documentation in the readme next to the touch documentation stating that the event will be recorded as update

should we make touch an event?

I don't know.

Reasons against: A touch is simply an update. It updates timestamps. If we had a touch event, the lifecycle would be harder to understand. Instead of eg. create-update-update-destroy, it's eg. create-update-touch-touch-update-touch-destroy. The "middle part" of the lifecycle becomes heterogeneous. This heterogeneity would be a major breaking change.

Reasons for: Maintains a one-to-one correspondence between callbacks and events, which makes callbacks easier to understand I guess. It's not a big advantage.

So I guess I'm leaning against making touch an event.

Okay then in that case, I simply updated the readme stating the event will be saved as update

jaredbeck · 2018-03-14T22:17:52Z


 module On
  RSpec.describe Update, type: :model, versioning: true do
+    let(:record) { described_class.create(name: "Alice") }


Please do not use let. I believe it makes tests harder to understand, especially when it's too far away, lexically, from the test.

Reading this from 2020, and I completely agree. It can be useful for dynamic values to DRY up tests but if it's overused, it becomes a nightmare. Additionally, the let block is only executed once it is called so that alone can be confusing and have detrimental side effects with tests.

jaredbeck · 2018-03-14T22:18:50Z

+        count = record.versions.count
+        expect(count).to eq(count)
+      end
+    end


Good test. Thanks for finding and using the existing models.

jaredbeck · 2018-03-14T22:21:19Z

+      count = widget.versions.count
+      widget.paper_trail.without_versioning do
+        expect(count).to eq(count)
+      end


I don't understand the implementation of this test. It's like saying expect(7).to eq(7), right? The local variable count is unchanging, right?

jaredbeck · 2018-03-16T22:22:05Z

Thanks, Weston.

gduprey · 2018-11-07T17:28:55Z

Is there a way to globally disable the tracking of the touch event? Or more generically, set the default /create/update/destroy/touch global 'on:' defaults ?

As implemented, it breaks when using the delay_touching gem (specific case is when a delayed touch is for a record that was marked for destruction, the attempt to create the version association in record_update() in record_trail.rb throws an exception because the @record no longer is persisted (as it was deleted before the touch events are fired - touch having been delayed as the function of the delay_touching gem).

Given this was not the default behavior before and the alternative is updating potentially hundreds of models (we have a pretty large app) to disable on: :touch, I'd much rather have a PaperTrail.config.xxxx setting once.

We upgraded from 7.x to 10.x and had this break (it worked before, likely because it was before touch versioning was done)

ghiculescu · 2018-12-26T19:54:19Z

@gduprey #1166 adds this

ghiculescu · 2018-12-26T19:55:25Z

.... of course it does, you wrote it.

* integrate versioning into AR touch method * add touch to list of :on events, deprecate touch_with_version * integrate versioning into AR touch method

integrate versioning into AR touch method

7dafd00

jaredbeck requested changes Mar 14, 2018

View reviewed changes

add touch to list of :on events, deprecate touch_with_version

1510095

jaredbeck requested changes Mar 14, 2018

View reviewed changes

integrate versioning into AR touch method

5c8cdcd

jaredbeck merged commit 02b6de2 into paper-trail-gem:master Mar 16, 2018

jaredbeck mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2018

Follow-up work re: touch #1066

Merged

jaredbeck mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2018

[v9.0.0] Difference between #touch and #paper_trail.touch_with_version? #1073

Closed

Conversation

westonganger commented Mar 13, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

westonganger commented Mar 13, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jaredbeck left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jaredbeck commented Mar 14, 2018

Uh oh!

jaredbeck commented Mar 14, 2018

Uh oh!

westonganger commented Mar 14, 2018

Uh oh!

westonganger commented Mar 14, 2018

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jaredbeck commented Mar 16, 2018

Uh oh!

gduprey commented Nov 7, 2018

Uh oh!

ghiculescu commented Dec 26, 2018

Uh oh!

ghiculescu commented Dec 26, 2018

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

westonganger commented Mar 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

westonganger commented Mar 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading