In looking at forem/forem#16787, it felt like we would benefit from a
similar approach as we adopted for nullifying blank strings.
This refactor helps pave the way for a "normalize_text_for" method (or
some such thing; naming things is hard).
This change also involved introducing a `describe` block into the
associated spec.
I was working on another branch and as part of my commit, Rubocop
removed a validation (but not the spec that asserted the validation).
Below is the "non-updating" rubocop offense on the other branch.
```shell
❯ rubocop ./app/models/notification_subscription.rb
Inspecting 1 file
C
Offenses:
app/models/notification_subscription.rb:13:29: C: [Correctable]
Rails/RedundantPresenceValidationOnBelongsTo: Remove explicit presence
validation for notifiable_id.
validates :notifiable_id, presence: true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1 file inspected, 1 offense detected, 1 offense auto-correctable
```
To remediate, I ran:
```shell
> rubocop --only "Rails/RedundantPresenceValidationOnBelongsTo" \
--auto-correct
```
This resolved the `app/models`. Then did some regex magic and removed
the assertions from `spec/models`.
For Forem folks, I wrote a [forem.team post][1] discuss if this is how
we want to proceed.
[1]:https://forem.team/jeremy/rubocop-auto-updating-mayhem-33a6
* Favoring dependent: :delete_all over :destroy
The `dependent: :destroy` callback is slower than `dependent: :delete`
and `dependent: :delete_all`. We need only favor the `dependent:
:destroy` when there's callbacks that happen.
In the case of :destroy, ActiveRecord instantiates each object and then
runs destroy. Whereas in the case of :delete, ActiveRecord issues a SQL
command to delete the related files.
It is often "safer" to use :destroy, as it guarantees that you'll
instantiate the record and run it's callbacks. But sometimes you have
to go with the speed of SQL.
This relates to #14140. Note there is still more to consider, but given
that we're looking at moving from :destroy on all of an article's page
views to :delete, we might buy enough time in the callback.
* Removing redundancy of article destroy
Prior to this commit, `before_destroy_actions` called the `bust_cache`
method which in turn called `touch_actor_latest_article_updated_at` but
`bust_cache` did not pass the destroying parameter. Then
`before_destroy_actions` immediately called
`touch_actor_latest_article_updated_at` with `destroying: true`.
With this change, we remove one of those duplicate calls.
* Fixing specs regarding relationships
* Fixing specs regarding relationships
* Favoring delete_all on user relationships
Prior to this commit, several of the user's "has_many" were marked as
`depenedent: :destroy`.
In the case of :destroy, ActiveRecord instantiates each object and then
runs destroy. Whereas in the case of :delete, ActiveRecord issues a SQL
command to delete the related files.
It is often "safer" to use :destroy, as it guarantees that you'll
instantiate the record and run it's callbacks. But sometimes you have
to go with the speed of SQL.
And while not directly related to #15424 it is representative of our
callback ecosystem creating some unexpected computational loads.
Related to #15442 and #15424
* Noting models that user no longer cascade destroys
* Add attribute cleaner
* Start using AttributeCleaner
* Add additional check
* Also work with non AR classes
* Remove unnecessray :aggregate_failures
* Rename to StringAttributeCleaner
* Create DiscussionLocks
* Fix specs
* Update nullify_blank_notes_and_reason
* Update before_validation call
* Updated DiscussionLockPolicy for clarity
* Move permitted_attributes to a constant
* Update route
* Apply suggestions from code review for frontend
Co-authored-by: Suzanne Aitchison <suzanne@forem.com>
* Add title tags
* Wrap unlock confirm in main element
* Wrap flash messages up in div
* Actually fix title tags
* Hide comment reply button when discussion is locked
* Add E2E tests
* Try to fix E2E tests
* Cypress...you work locally but not in CI...why!?
* PR feedback
* Update E2E tests
* More E2E updates 😭
Co-authored-by: Suzanne Aitchison <suzanne@forem.com>
