-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 122
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: ActiveSupportConcern
recursively checks for ClassMethod
#1933
Merged
egiurleo
merged 4 commits into
Shopify:main
from
spencewenski:ActiveSupportConcern-generates-invalid-classmethod
Jun 20, 2024
Merged
fix: ActiveSupportConcern
recursively checks for ClassMethod
#1933
egiurleo
merged 4 commits into
Shopify:main
from
spencewenski:ActiveSupportConcern-generates-invalid-classmethod
Jun 20, 2024
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Problem ------- `ActiveSupportConcern` uses [const_defined?](https://apidock.com/ruby/Module/const_defined%3f) to check if `ClassMethods` exists on a module. By default, `const_defined?` checks the module and its ancestors for the existence of the constant. This means that `const_defined?` will return `true` when a module does not have `ClassMethods` defined, but one of its ancestors does. This can result in `ActiveSupportConcern` generating `mixes_in_class_methods.*ClassMethods` lines for invalid `.*ClassMethods` modules. The first commit in this PR adds a negative test case that should fail with the existing code. Solution -------- `const_defined?` takes a second parameter that controls whether to include ancestors in the check. Setting this parameter to `false` to exclude ancestors.
Set the second parameter of [const_defined?](https://apidock.com/ruby/Module/const_defined%3f) to false in order to exclude ancestors of the module when checking for the existence of the `ClassMethods` constant.
KaanOzkan
approved these changes
Jun 19, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. I'll merge after the linting fix.
amomchilov
approved these changes
Jun 19, 2024
This should be fixed now. Thanks! |
spencewenski
deleted the
ActiveSupportConcern-generates-invalid-classmethod
branch
June 20, 2024 16:50
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
ActiveSupportConcern
usesconst_defined?
to check ifClassMethods
exists on a module. By default,const_defined?
checks the module and its ancestors for the existence of the constant. This means thatconst_defined?
will returntrue
when a module does not haveClassMethods
defined, but one of its ancestors does. This can result inActiveSupportConcern
generatingmixes_in_class_methods.*ClassMethods
lines for invalid.*ClassMethods
modules.Implementation
const_defined?
takes a second parameter that controls whether to include ancestors in the check. Setting this parameter tofalse
to exclude ancestors.Tests
The first commit in this PR adds a negative test case that should fail with the existing code and pass with the fix from the second commit.