Scoping reserved names #31179

kinnrot · 2017-11-18T19:53:14Z

Summary

Suggestion for resolving #31120
Don't allow creating scopes named same as ActiveRecord::Relation instance method

rails-bot · 2017-11-18T19:53:17Z

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rails team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @kaspth (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

This repository is being automatically checked for code quality issues using Code Climate. You can see results for this analysis in the PR status below. Newly introduced issues should be fixed before a Pull Request is considered ready to review.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

eugeneius · 2017-11-18T23:32:31Z

activerecord/lib/active_record/scoping/named.rb

@@ -171,6 +171,12 @@ def scope(name, body, &block)
              "a class method with the same name."
          end

+          if Relation.instance_methods.include?(name)


Relation.instance_methods also includes all instance methods defined on Object. We shouldn't reject those; declaring a scope named object_id works just fine, for example, even if it's an odd thing to do.

I think method_defined_within?(name, Relation) will do the right thing here.

eugeneius · 2017-11-18T23:33:31Z

activerecord/test/cases/scoping/named_scoping_test.rb

@@ -151,6 +151,22 @@ def test_scopes_body_is_a_callable
    assert_equal "The scope body needs to be callable.", e.message
  end

+  def test_scopes_name_is_ralation_method


ralation -> relation

eugeneius · 2017-11-18T23:43:31Z

activerecord/test/cases/scoping/named_scoping_test.rb

    end

-    [:public_method, :protected_method, :private_method].each do |reserved_method|
+    [:attribute_was, :attribute_changed?, :changed].each do |reserved_method|


If you use method_defined_within? as I suggested above, these won't need to change.

kinnrot · 2017-11-19T09:21:05Z

@eugeneius 10x, If you already looked at this code, What do you think about a more actionable message when this issue occurs? How about something that explain's how to cancel auto scope generation from enum or any other places that scopes are auto generated on rail load?

eugeneius · 2017-11-19T17:00:35Z

It looks like ActiveRecord::Enum has its own logic to reject dangerous methods: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v5.1.4/activerecord/lib/active_record/enum.rb#L219

I think we should extend that to cover instance methods on Relation too.

I'm not aware of any other places where Active Record automatically creates scopes for you, so I think adding the enum-specific check should be enough to give users reasonably useful error messages.

kinnrot · 2017-11-21T15:22:14Z

@eugeneius sounds right, I added the check, so what is the way to tell rails to not create a scope for a enum field named 'record' for example ?

eugeneius · 2017-11-22T02:03:20Z

Nice one 😊 could you add a test for the enum validation too?

It's not currently possible to suppress enum scopes; that sounds like a reasonable addition to me, but I think you should wait for a maintainer to review what you have here already and then follow up with a separate pull request afterwards if they're 👍 on the idea.

rafaelfranca

Can you add a CHANGELOG entry and squash your commits after it?

eugeneius · 2017-11-23T23:47:39Z

activerecord/test/cases/enum_test.rb

+          enum category: [:other, value]
+        end
+      end
+      assert_match(/You tried to define a scope named .* on the model/, e.message)


This should be raising an enum-specific message ("You tried to define an enum named [...]"), which suggests that the new logic there isn't correct.

eugeneius · 2017-11-23T23:56:15Z

activerecord/lib/active_record/enum.rb

@@ -225,6 +225,8 @@ def detect_enum_conflict!(enum_name, method_name, klass_method = false)
          raise_conflict_error(enum_name, method_name)
        elsif !klass_method && method_defined_within?(method_name, _enum_methods_module, Module)
          raise_conflict_error(enum_name, method_name, source: "another enum")
+        elsif !klass_method && method_defined_within?(method_name, Relation)


When this method is called to detect scope name conflicts, klass_method is true:
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v5.1.4/activerecord/lib/active_record/enum.rb#L197

A scope is a class method on the model, even if we sometimes access it as an instance method on Relation.

Oh I see, can you show me where is the code that allows accessing the scope via a relation instance?

https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v5.1.4/activerecord/lib/active_record/relation/delegation.rb#L90

eugeneius · 2017-11-25T17:08:01Z

activerecord/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -425,6 +425,12 @@
    Previously this method always returned an empty array.

    *Kevin McPhillips*
+
+*   Fix inconsistency when using scope name same as instance method of `ActiveRecord::Relation` class.


"Fix inconsistency" sounds like we made this work correctly, when really we don't allow it any more. How about:

Don't allow scopes to be defined which conflict with instance methods on Relation.

New changelog entries should be added at the top of the file.

sounds good

eugeneius · 2017-11-25T17:14:21Z

activerecord/lib/active_record/enum.rb

@@ -225,6 +225,8 @@ def detect_enum_conflict!(enum_name, method_name, klass_method = false)
          raise_conflict_error(enum_name, method_name)
        elsif !klass_method && method_defined_within?(method_name, _enum_methods_module, Module)
          raise_conflict_error(enum_name, method_name, source: "another enum")
+        elsif klass_method && method_defined_within?(method_name, Relation)
+          raise_conflict_error(enum_name, method_name, source: ActiveRecord::Relation.name)


The error raised here currently says:

[...] this will generate a instance method "records", which is already defined by ActiveRecord::Relation.

We should pass type: "class", so that it says:

[...] this will generate a class method "records"

What do you think of moving this code up by 4 lines, so that both of the if klass_method checks are next to each other? It might have been easier to spot the type: "class" inconsistency if that was the case.

We're referencing Relation on the line above, and ActiveRecord::Relation here; we can use Relation in both places, since this code is inside the ActiveRecord module.

Thanks man!

one question if I may,
When I call a model scope method, Don't I get a relation instance, and when calling a scope method on this relation, it's a class method, where does the delegation happen ?

Relation#method_missing delegates methods to the model class if it responds to them:
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v5.1.4/activerecord/lib/active_record/relation/delegation.rb#L88-L90

kaspth · 2017-11-25T19:13:09Z

r? @rafaelfranca

eugeneius · 2017-11-26T14:35:46Z

activerecord/CHANGELOG.md

+
+    Fixes #31120.
+
+    *kinnrot*


New changelog entries should be added at the top of the file.

eugeneius · 2017-11-26T21:40:34Z

activerecord/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -425,6 +431,5 @@
    Previously this method always returned an empty array.

    *Kevin McPhillips*
-
-
+


Can you undo the whitespace changes here, and squash your commits again? After that, this looks good to me - thanks for being so responsive to feedback @kinnrot! 🙏

is that ok?

There's still a diff here, but I'm not sure if it's a blocker for merging - maybe @rafaelfranca can let us know.

This diff can easily be removed by deleting the four extra whitespaces and adding one blank line.

kinnrot · 2017-11-27T10:38:32Z

Yeah I tried to take the previous version and not touching the bottom of the file, but that didn't do the trick

…

On Nov 27, 2017 12:32 PM, "Eugene Kenny" ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In activerecord/CHANGELOG.md <#31179 (comment)>: > @@ -425,6 +431,5 @@ Previously this method always returned an empty array. *Kevin McPhillips* - - + There's still a diff here, but I'm not sure if it's a blocker for merging - maybe @rafaelfranca <https://github.com/rafaelfranca> can let us know. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#31179 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABuhN1RAQsaQT73Zog63ijvjhMJ6nxxIks5s6o_OgaJpZM4QjIFa> .

kinnrot · 2017-11-28T08:26:09Z

The changelog thing is good now.

eugeneius · 2017-11-28T13:30:15Z

activerecord/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 ## Rails 5.2.0.beta1 (November 27, 2017) ##


So close 😄 but the new changelog entry needs to be above this line, at the very top of the file.

Rails 5.2.0.beta1 has already been released, so it doesn't make sense to include this change under that heading.

kinnrot · 2017-11-28T13:47:58Z

🤗 ohh, I didn't realize that.. well hope to get to beta2 Chen Kinnrot [email protected]

…

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Eugene Kenny ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In activerecord/CHANGELOG.md <#31179 (comment)>: > @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@ ## Rails 5.2.0.beta1 (November 27, 2017) ## So close 😄 but the new changelog entry needs to be *above* this line, at the very top of the file. Rails 5.2.0.beta1 has already been released, so it doesn't make sense to include this change under that heading. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#31179 (review)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABuhN9UEBOrTjkpAGTyT2L_VfDooRgIqks5s7AsYgaJpZM4QjIFa> .

Due to inconsistent behavior when chaining scopes and one scope named after a Relation method Validation code added in 2 places: - scope, to prevent problematic scope names. - enum, cause it tries to auto define scope.

Scoping reserved names

hw676018683 · 2018-04-09T08:09:27Z

when I write the following code:

  class Attachemnt < ApplicationRecord
    enum extension: {
      unknown: 0,
      image: 1,
      video: 2,
      audio: 3
    }
  end

Get the following error:

You tried to define an enum named "extension" on the model "Attachment", but this will generate a class method "extensions", which is already defined by ActiveRecord::Relation. (ArgumentError)

But I never use something like Attachment.all.extensions. So I think it may be more appropriate to only limit scope.
detect_enum_conflict!(name, name.pluralize, true), the class method name.pluralize should not be limited.

The delegation methods to named scope are defined when `method_missing` is invoked on the relation. Since rails#29301, the receiver in the named scope is changed to the relation like others (e.g. `default_scope`, etc) for consistency. Most named scopes would be delegated from relation by `method_missing`, since we don't allow scopes to be defined which conflict with instance methods on `Relation` (rails#31179). But if a named scope is defined with the same name as any method on the `superclass` (e.g. `Kernel.open`), the `method_missing` on the relation is not invoked. To address the issue, make the delegation methods to named scope is generated in the definition time. Fixes rails#34098.

rails-bot assigned kaspth Nov 18, 2017

eugeneius reviewed Nov 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

rafaelfranca reviewed Nov 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

eugeneius reviewed Nov 23, 2017

View reviewed changes

kinnrot force-pushed the scoping-reserved-names branch 2 times, most recently from 695e4a2 to f87c4cb Compare November 24, 2017 10:36

eugeneius reviewed Nov 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

rails-bot assigned rafaelfranca and unassigned kaspth Nov 25, 2017

eugeneius reviewed Nov 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

activerecord/CHANGELOG.md

Fixes #31120.

*kinnrot*

Copy link

Member

eugeneius Nov 26, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

New changelog entries should be added at the top of the file.

eugeneius reviewed Nov 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

kinnrot force-pushed the scoping-reserved-names branch 2 times, most recently from a8bdc1c to 7247816 Compare November 27, 2017 10:15

kinnrot force-pushed the scoping-reserved-names branch from 7247816 to d0e969a Compare November 28, 2017 08:24

eugeneius reviewed Nov 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

kinnrot force-pushed the scoping-reserved-names branch from d0e969a to 6552ce0 Compare November 28, 2017 13:50

eugeneius approved these changes Nov 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

rafaelfranca merged commit 6552ce0 into rails:master Nov 28, 2017

rafaelfranca added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2017

Merge pull request #31179 from kinnrot/scoping-reserved-names

8633567

Scoping reserved names

eugeneius mentioned this pull request Dec 12, 2017

Scope named records behaves inconsistently #31120

Closed

y-yagi mentioned this pull request Jul 28, 2018

Cannot Define Enum with attribute "size" #33457

Closed

murb mentioned this pull request Aug 15, 2018

Make scope creation optional caedes/act_as_time_as_boolean#6

Open

kamipo mentioned this pull request Oct 8, 2018

Generate delegation methods to named scope in the definition time #34122

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Scoping reserved names #31179

Scoping reserved names #31179

kinnrot commented Nov 18, 2017

rails-bot commented Nov 18, 2017

eugeneius Nov 18, 2017

eugeneius Nov 18, 2017

eugeneius Nov 18, 2017

kinnrot commented Nov 19, 2017

eugeneius commented Nov 19, 2017

kinnrot commented Nov 21, 2017 •

edited

Loading

eugeneius commented Nov 22, 2017

rafaelfranca left a comment

eugeneius Nov 23, 2017

eugeneius Nov 23, 2017

kinnrot Nov 24, 2017 •

edited

Loading

eugeneius Nov 24, 2017

eugeneius Nov 25, 2017

kinnrot Nov 26, 2017

eugeneius Nov 25, 2017

eugeneius Nov 25, 2017

eugeneius Nov 25, 2017

kinnrot Nov 26, 2017

eugeneius Nov 26, 2017

kaspth commented Nov 25, 2017

eugeneius Nov 26, 2017

eugeneius Nov 26, 2017

kinnrot Nov 27, 2017

eugeneius Nov 27, 2017

kamipo Nov 27, 2017

kinnrot commented Nov 27, 2017 via email

kinnrot commented Nov 28, 2017

eugeneius Nov 28, 2017

kinnrot commented Nov 28, 2017 via email

hw676018683 commented Apr 9, 2018

		@@ -425,6 +431,5 @@
		Previously this method always returned an empty array.

		Kevin McPhillips

Scoping reserved names #31179

Scoping reserved names #31179

Conversation

kinnrot commented Nov 18, 2017

Summary

rails-bot commented Nov 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kinnrot commented Nov 19, 2017

eugeneius commented Nov 19, 2017

kinnrot commented Nov 21, 2017 • edited Loading

eugeneius commented Nov 22, 2017

rafaelfranca left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kinnrot Nov 24, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kaspth commented Nov 25, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kinnrot commented Nov 27, 2017 via email

kinnrot commented Nov 28, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kinnrot commented Nov 28, 2017 via email

hw676018683 commented Apr 9, 2018

kinnrot commented Nov 21, 2017 •

edited

Loading

kinnrot Nov 24, 2017 •

edited

Loading