Fix Railtie and its requires

[ribose-jeffreylau]

No description provided.

[skalee]

This pull request makes me realize that there are literally no tests which cover railtie… I'm opening a new issue #56 about that.

[skalee]

This very invocation concludes active_uuid/connection_patches.rb, so I suppose moving line no. 2 here is a better option.

[ribose-jeffreylau]

By line no. 2, is that require "rails or ActiveUUID::ConnectionPatches.apply! or some other lines?

Where does the line need to be moved?

[skalee]

I have amended that commit. See: c4ffad2.

[skalee]

Nevertheless, I'm not sure if we need Railtie at all. I don't like that it applies patches unconditionally. See my other comment: #55 (comment).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #55 into master will decrease coverage by 0.19%.
The diff coverage is 88.88%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master      #55     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage   99.05%   98.86%   -0.2%     
=========================================
  Files          21       23      +2     
  Lines         425      439     +14     
=========================================
+ Hits          421      434     +13     
- Misses          4        5      +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
spec/integration/railtie_spec.rb	100% <100%> (ø)
lib/active_uuid/railtie.rb	85.71% <50%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bd536eb...1cb2cd3. Read the comment docs.

[skalee]

One thing I've changed since original ActiveUUID is that monkey patching is now facultative (see README):

No core feature relies on Rails monkey patching. Monkey patches can interfere with other gems, and lead to issues. Nevertheless, some convenient features (currently, migration methods only) are provided via monkey patching. Enabling them is entirely optional, and their absence can be workarounded easily.

This pull request violates it, as loading the Railtie applies monkey patches unconditionally.

I don't know… maybe we should remove this Railtie entirely? Or add some configuration option? Thoughts, @ribose-jeffreylau? I'll probably do some research.

[ribose-jeffreylau]

@skalee We see the following options:

• Add a check for the constant Rails before defining this Railtie;
• Use some other configuration methods instead of Railtie (i.e. remove Railtie);

We are OK either way. There may be other ways but these two are the most obvious that I can think of right now.

[skalee]

@ribose-jeffreylau Will following satisfy your needs?

1. Railtie removal
2. Writing something like gem "activeuuid", require: "active_uuid/all" in Gemfile

If the only purpose of this Railtie is to apply connection patches, then I'd rather like to remove it entirely, and encourage users to enable them explicitly if they want them.

[ronaldtse]

Writing something like gem "activeuuid", require: "active_uuid/all" in Gemfile

This works in Gemfile but not with gemspec inheritance. As long as we have documentation to indicate the user needs to write require "active_uuid/all", it should be good enough.

Or would something like this work?

if defined?(Rails)
  require "activeuuid/rails"
end