#5286 ActiveRecord::Base.abstract_class? should return false not nil - Ruby on Rails

Type	To find
responsible:me	tickets assigned to you
tagged:"@high"	tickets tagged @high
milestone:next	tickets in the upcoming milestone
state:invalid	tickets with the state invalid
created:"last week"	tickets created last week
sort:number, importance, updated	tickets sorted by #, importance or updated
Combine keywords for powerful searching.
Use advanced searching »

This project is archived and is in readonly mode.

#5286 ✓invalid

ActiveRecord::Base.abstract_class? should return false not nil

Reported by Rohit Arondekar | August 3rd, 2010 @ 03:51 PM | in 3.0.2

Although this doesn't break anything, but ActiveRecord::Base.abstract_class? returns nil when @abstract_class is not defined. This still works as nil and false are treated as false in conditionals. But Ruby methods ending with a ?, by convention should return true/false. The attached patch ensures that it does return false if @abstract_class is not defined.

IMHO no test was needed as the existing tests cover the functionality provided by the method.

Credit: Neeraj Singh for originally spotting the discrepancy.

abstract_class.diff 899 Bytes

Comments and changes to this ticket

Neeraj Singh August 3rd, 2010 @ 04:16 PM
I think you should add the test that method returns false and not nil :-)
Rohit Arondekar August 4th, 2010 @ 02:24 AM
New patch with a test. :)
- ar_base.diff 1.6 KB
Rohit Arondekar August 4th, 2010 @ 03:29 AM
- State changed from “new” to “invalid”
This is actually not needed as both nil and false behave the same. Also it's acceptable that a method ending with a ? return either nil or false if the condition is not satisfied. Closing ticket. :)
Jeremy Kemper October 15th, 2010 @ 11:02 PM
- Milestone set to “3.0.2”
[bulk edit]