But the fact that it breaks default functionality (and the developers response) scares me.
What do you mean by "developers response"? > I was referring to Ernie's response to the issue you raised, and his response to the related issue: https://github.com/ernie/squeel/issues/67 His responses seem to indicate he (thinks he) knows better about how the Rails core internals should work. He also cited the lack of documentation as a justification: "In AR documentation, symbols are never shown as a value in examples." As pcantrell noted: "Call it questionable or not, but squeel is explicitly * narrowing* the set of valid inputs on existing ActiveRecord methods. That is a Bad Thing™". It doesn't break too much. Intrudes a bit, but not too heavily. > For me the issues was that I had to convert symbols to strings within the > app (where :status => 'active'). > > This is what the author replied in a tweet: > https://twitter.com/erniemiller/status/192082433540231168 > "FWIW, it's much less intrusive than MetaWhere was, and it saw tons of > use." > He can interperet the intentions of the Rails core devs (based on their docs or not), or justify his code by comparing it to other Gems as much as he likes. But unless he's prepared to convice the core team that his way is better, I think he should "go with the flow", or at least avoid breaking their code. You might be able to mitigate that breakage in your own code, but it'd be a > world of hurt if you ever use a Gem (either directly or indirectly) that > relies on it. > > > In that case it would be an issue with Squeel. In which case I suppos it > would have been fixed. > But it shouldn't break anything heavily according to Ernie (the author). > > But this is probably my biggest concern indeed. > > I do still like the look of squeel, but that concern is a big one. I know I'd have to change code to make my projects work. It does raise the question of how many Gems are out there that would cause Rails to fail its test suite though. And personally, that'd be the most comprehensive test of "sociability" you easily could do for any gem. If you can't install your gem without causing the Rails test suite to fail, I'd consider that "A Bad Thing". -- Craig Read @Catharz https://github.com/Catharz http://stackoverflow.com/users/158893/catharz -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
