fix: Run actiontext migrations for rails >= 6

[KapilSachdev]

... as actiontext is made available on rails 6.0

[vsppedro]

But it can be used in versions below if included in the Gemfile that is why the other condition. (bundle.includes?('actiontext'))

For example: https://www.driftingruby.com/episodes/using-action-text-in-a-rails-5-2-application

I notice now that I forgot to test the actiontext on other versions. It's only tested on Rails 6. If we decide to not test on 5.2, I see no problem with this adjustment.

[KapilSachdev]

I notice now that I forgot to test the actiontext on other versions. It's only tested on Rails 6. If we decide to not test on 5.2, I see no problem with this adjustment.

Unless we use a patched fork to work around, rails/actiontext gem dependencies for rails < 6 can not be met from official sources.

We can also use bundle.includes?('actiontext') only rather than checking the version.

[vsppedro]

Yeah, you are right. We can ignore the version. I don't see any problem with this change, but I think we can do even better. Let me take another look at the project.

EDIT 1: LGTM!
EDIT2: I was looking at this file and wondering why I didn't do something similar, but I don't think something like that is necessary for this case. We can do this refactoring later if the need arises. Thank you for pointing this out.

[KapilSachdev]

Yes, maybe later it becomes a refactoring candidate as we do not rely on version but rather on definition of actiontext.

[mcmire]

Is this build failing, is that what caused this change? I guess I'm wondering what this affects and how you knew to change this.

[KapilSachdev]

Yes, I noticed it because of the build failure while fixing Style/ClassEqualityComparison offence.

Though I think I will have to add defined?(ActionText::RichText) at

shoulda-matchers/lib/shoulda/matchers/active_record/have_rich_text_matcher.rb

Lines 69 to 71 in 402abf8

	def has_expected_action_text?
	@subject.send(rich_text_attribute).class.name == 'ActionText::RichText'
	end

[vsppedro]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how this fix will help you with the CI breaking on #1350.

The problem there is ActionText::RichText being called without being defined. For that reason, we compared with a string as you can see in this comment: #1263 (comment)

There are tests when the ActionText is not defined: https://github.com/thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers/blob/master/spec/unit/shoulda/matchers/active_record/have_rich_text_matcher_spec.rb#L51

We need to find another way to check if the attribute is an ActionText::RichText instance without using the class.

EDIT:

I'm almost sure that this change will fix the problem on #1350:

defined?(ActionText::RichText) && @subject.send(rich_text_attribute).instance_of?(ActionText::RichText)

PS: But I think it should be done on #1350.

[KapilSachdev]

While running tests of this repo, actiontext will not be available for rails < 6, so the condition is wrong rails_version > 5.

defined?(ActionText::RichText) && @subject.send(rich_text_attribute).instance_of?(ActionText::RichText)

Yes, I would have to do that at #1350 .

I didn't wanted rails version changes to be part of #1350 because they don't belong there.
Though there had been some code changes that rubocop forced to be done, but i'm trying for them to be minimal.

[mcmire]

Ah, I see. The build isn't broken, this seems to be more of a consistency thing, as we don't check for a Rails version in the tests either:

shoulda-matchers/spec/unit/shoulda/matchers/active_record/have_rich_text_matcher_spec.rb

Line 5 in 59f7c0b

defined?(ActionText::RichText)

Okay, that makes sense to me. Merging!