Fix missing_presence_validation crash when inclusion/exclusion :in is a method name#243
Open
SAY-5 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Fix missing_presence_validation crash when inclusion/exclusion :in is a method name#243SAY-5 wants to merge 1 commit into
SAY-5 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
… a method name Signed-off-by: Sai Asish Y <say.apm35@gmail.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #238.
missing_presence_validationcrashes when an inclusion or exclusion validator uses a method name for:in, e.g.validates :status, inclusion: { in: :allowed_statuses }. In that casevalidator.options[:in]is a Symbol, and the detector calls.exclude?/.include?on it, raisingNoMethodError: undefined method 'exclude?' for an instance of Symbol.A Symbol
:inis resolved at validation time, just like a Proc, so the allowed values aren't known statically. This treats it the same way the Proc case is already handled instead of assuming the value responds toinclude?/exclude?.