Michael Koziarski <[email protected]> writes:
>> I think it is like silently swallowing exception without knowing what
>> to do about them.
>>
>> I will suggest to modify the existing implementation of
>> ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column::value_to_boolean
>>
>> to
>> ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.class_eval %q{
>> def self.value_to_boolean(value)
>> case value
>> when *TRUE_VALUES.to_a: true
>> when *FALSE_VALUES.to_a: false
>> else nil
>> end
>> end
>> }
>>
>> First of all it simplifies the implementation (getting rid of initial
>> if. secondly it will at least result in nil if value is neither
>> recognised among TRUE_VALUES nor FALSE_VALUES
>
> The initial if is there deliberately to allow people with html forms
> to transmit a nil value by sending a blank string. But as for the
> coerce to nil suggestion
> that would be similarly silent for users. People who didn't set their
> columns to NOT NULL would just start having NULL values showing up
> where previously they were false. Seems like this would replace one
> slightly strange situation with another, and not necessarily improve
> things
I agree, I see your point. Optimally I would suggest raising an
ArgumentError opposed to returning nil.. But there seems to be a
return-nil-instead-of-raise-exception practice in the coerce
functions. so I suggested "else nil" to follow that convention.
Currently the implementation of value_to_boolean does not follow the
convention of returning nil, where input is not coerceable. Many other
coerce functions return nil in these situation, see
ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.string_to_date("bullshit") => nil
But I also see that this "convention" is not general for all coerce
functions:
ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_decimal("asdfasdf") =>
#<BigDecimal:7fa16c93fe08,'0.0',9(9)>
Actually my frustration was this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/69b8a475f60c3f24#
I assume now that I see value_to_decimal returns 0.0 as default value,
I would have the same frustration about
validates_inclusion_of :decimal_field, :in => [0]
I think I will raise a bug on the more high level problem, and let the
core developers decided how it should be implemented.
Jarl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
