rails 4.1 deprecates Validator#setup

[razum2um]

looks some kind of ugly, but i'd rather not to bump version because of this change

# DEPRECATION WARNING: The `Validator#setup` instance method is deprecated
and will be removed on Rails 4.2.

[jaredbeck]

looks some kind of ugly

Yeah, the alias_method seems like a bit of a hack.

However, I've tried out this patch in my own project, and can confirm that the deprecation warnings are gone, and all my tests still pass. Hope that helps.

gem 'validates_timeliness',
  github: 'razum2um/validates_timeliness',
  ref: 'b195081f6aeead619430ad38b0f0dfe4d4981252'

cc: @adzap

[jaredbeck]

Here's another solution from @yabawock.

[razum2um]

yes, it's better to rely on respond_to? :deprecated_setup than on a version
please, prefer his solution

[jaredbeck]

Hmm I'm not sure you should close this, unless there's another PR I'm not
seeing.

On Monday, April 7, 2014, Vlad Bokov notifications@github.com wrote:

Closed #114 #114.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/114
.

Jared Beck * (607) 216-5373 * jared@jaredbeck.com

[johncarney]

Actually, respond_to? :deprecated_setup is no good. First because deprecated_setup is a private instance method, so ActiveModel::Validator.respond_to? :deprecated_setup will always return false.

Replacing it with private_instance_methods.include? :deprecated_setup works, but then you have a small problem of what happens when deprecated_setup is removed altogether in Rails 4.2. You'll end up with a redundant method definition (or alias). This probably isn't too bad and you can mitigate the risk of future conflict by adding method_defined? :setup to the conditional.

I've sent a pull request with this solution: #117

[felixbuenemann]

I've yet another approach to this using version detection: felixbuenemann/validates_timeliness@b04193d

[johncarney]

I prefer a method based on actual behaviour rather than version numbers, but I do like the way you've put it in a constant.

[felixbuenemann]

I think your version is fine for this case.

[jaredbeck]

👍 @felixbuenemann I like the constant too. Let's move this conversation over to #117 since this PR is closed.