remove annotate warnings and comments #873
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
marcoroth
force-pushed
the
main
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d35f39a to
ec30df0
Compare
kaspth
added a commit
to kaspth/active_record-associated_object
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 10, 2025
Our `method_missing` based proxying is technically eager to hopefully allow us to support more of Active Record's surface area cheaply. It's been working well for over 3 years, but there's some issues. Notably, a `record.respond_to?` check is not enough and there's certain methods we don't want to proxy. Stuff like Active Record's class-level configuration API via `abtract_class?`, `descends_from_active_record?`, `abstract_class=` and `primary_abstract_class=` to name a few. So ideally opting out of proxying methods that end in `?` and `=` should be safe. I'm not including `!` to allow `find_by!` to work. Ref: rubyevents/rubyevents#873
kaspth
added a commit
to kaspth/active_record-associated_object
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 10, 2025
#42) Our `method_missing` based proxying is technically eager to hopefully allow us to support more of Active Record's surface area cheaply. It's been working well for over 3 years, but there's some issues. Notably, a `record.respond_to?` check is not enough and there's certain methods we don't want to proxy. Stuff like Active Record's class-level configuration API via `abtract_class?`, `descends_from_active_record?`, `abstract_class=` and `primary_abstract_class=` to name a few. So ideally opting out of proxying methods that end in `?` and `=` should be safe. I'm not including `!` to allow `find_by!` to work. Ref: rubyevents/rubyevents#873 Ref: #40
|
I just shipped a new release that should fix this https://github.com/kaspth/active_record-associated_object/releases/tag/v0.9.3 I verified the fix on this PR and it shouldn't bail on Associated Objects anymore. There's a separate failure about an enum column not being backed by a database column now though. |
|
Thanks @kaspth for the enum error I know where this is coming from when you have an old db that didn’t run the migrations from a long time I have a fix that I will push in another PR |
adrienpoly
force-pushed
the
remove-annotate-rb-warnings
branch
from
f99c117 to
7449ea1
Compare
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.
following to drwl/annotaterb#172 this PR removes teh magic comment required in associated objects to silence the annotations warnings
Normally the problem should be fix with the new
annotaterbgem andactive_record-associated-objectbut at the time of this writing when I run the command I still have those warnings