Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upSupport endless ranges in where #34906
+18
−2
Conversation
rails-bot
bot
added
the
activerecord
label
Jan 9, 2019
tenderlove
requested changes
Jan 9, 2019
| @@ -639,6 +639,16 @@ class AttributeTest < Arel::Spec | |||
| ) | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| it "can be constructed with a range implicitly ending at Infinity" do | |||
| attribute = Attribute.new nil, nil | |||
| node = attribute.between(0..) | |||
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
tenderlove
Jan 9, 2019
Member
I think this will give us a syntax error on 2.5. Can you conditionalize this test so we don't get build failures on 2.5?
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
gregnavis
Jan 9, 2019
Author
Contributor
Sure. The built actually failed for precisely this reason. I'll push an update tomorrow.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
gregnavis
Jan 10, 2019
Author
Contributor
D'oh, what I did won't work for syntax error
I can either:
- Come up with something that would work for syntax errors.
- Leave the check as it is and replace
0..with0..nil(they're equivalent). In Rubyies pre-2.6 the latter results in anArgumentErrorexception.
@tenderlove what do you think?
gregnavis
force-pushed the
gregnavis:add-endless-ranges-to-activerecord
branch
from
3a67c12
to
20b108a
Jan 10, 2019
sikachu
reviewed
Jan 11, 2019
| if Gem::Version.new('2.6.0') <= Gem::Version.new(RUBY_VERSION) | ||
| it "can be constructed with a range implicitly ending at Infinity" do | ||
| attribute = Attribute.new nil, nil | ||
| node = attribute.between(0..) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
sikachu
Jan 11, 2019
Member
May I suggest this?
Suggested change Beta
| node = attribute.between(0..) | |
| node = attribute.between(eval("0..")) # Use eval for compatibility with Ruby < 2.6 parser. |
This way Ruby parser in version < 2.6 will just overlook it.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
gregnavis
force-pushed the
gregnavis:add-endless-ranges-to-activerecord
branch
2 times, most recently
from
905d11e
to
fbccf87
Jan 11, 2019
sikachu
reviewed
Jan 11, 2019
|
Would you mind checking CodeClimate? Looks like in the test, line 642 and 645 should both use double quote and not single quote. |
gregnavis
force-pushed the
gregnavis:add-endless-ranges-to-activerecord
branch
from
fbccf87
to
7110dbe
Jan 11, 2019
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@tenderlove @sikachu thanks for comments! The build is green now. Please have another look. |
tenderlove
approved these changes
Jan 11, 2019
tenderlove
merged commit 3a1b2a2
into
rails:master
Jan 11, 2019
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2019
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.
gregnavis commentedJan 9, 2019
•
edited
Summary
This commit adds support for endless ranges, e.g.
(1..), that were added in Ruby 2.6. They're functionally equivalent to explicitly specifyingFloat::INFINITYas the end of the range.Specifically:
is equivalent to
Other Information
Only the end of a range can be omitted. Trying
(..1)results in a syntax error so there's no need to add support for implicit-Float::INFINITY.Alternative Implementation
We could modify
otherat the beginning ofbetweenand replacenilwithFloat::INFINITY(or even support-Float::INFINITY) so that there'd be no changes to conditions inifstatements below + we would be able to supportnil..1(equivalent to-Float::INFINITY..1).Please let me know if you find this preferable and I'll update the PR.