Added transaction verbosity for activerecord

[Strech]

Make spec from c1f32f6 fail

As you can see here https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activerecord/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/transaction.rb#L75

AR by default swallows exception. But in rails app, this attribute set to true.
After you merge this request, you will find #64 very helpful

[joevandyk]

I believe this option is for the upcoming Rails 4.2 release.

[Strech]

@joevandyk yap, this is for rails 4.2 ... we already use it. And #64 is the real pain for us ...

[Strech]

@joevandyk I could add new Gemfile for 4.2 and set this options only if Rails version >= 4.2

[Strech]

@chanks

In Rails.4.1.6 it swallows exceptions by default

def rollback_records
        @state.set_state(:rolledback)
        records.uniq.each do |record|
          begin
            record.rolledback!(parent.closed?)
          rescue => e
            record.logger.error(e) if record.respond_to?(:logger) && record.logger
          end
        end
      end

[Strech]

@chanks I just try to say – you passed spec is not true. Because exception is swallowed by rescue block.

I added ActiveRecord version check in spec. Please 👀

[joevandyk]

I can confirm that when using Rails master and adding this to the spec:

ActiveRecord::Base.raise_in_transactional_callbacks = true

results in this error:

Failures:

  1) Que using the ActiveRecord adapter should be able to survive an ActiveRecord::Rollback without raising an error
     Failure/Error: ActiveRecord::Base.transaction do
     NoMethodError:
       undefined method `rolledback!' for #<Que::Adapters::ActiveRecord::CommittedCallback:0x007fc3753e23b8>
     # ./spec/adapters/active_record_spec.rb:106:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'

All the changes I made:

[Strech]

@joevandyk The main problem is that AR swallow real exception and the spec is passed

[Strech]

@joevandyk Look here https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v4.1.6/activerecord%2Flib%2Factive_record%2Fconnection_adapters%2Fabstract%2Ftransaction.rb#L135-L139

[joevandyk]

@Strech Yes, that makes sense now. Thanks for your time on this!