Refactor delete_records method #15099
Merged
Conversation
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
| records.each(&:destroy!) | ||
| update_counter(-records.length) unless inverse_updates_counter_cache? | ||
| update_counter(-count) unless inverse_updates_counter_cache? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any benefit to this change? count isn't used anywhere else. Ditto for L129
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so. @eileencodes and I were attempting to pull this call to update_counter as well as the one in the else branch outside the if statement so we pulled out a count variable.
@eileencodes can you change this back to -records.length and I'll merge it in.
Refactor by creating two methods delete_all_records and delete_records to be called by delete_all and delete (or destroy) respectively. This reduces the number of conditionals required to handle _how_ records get deleted. The new delete_count method handles how scope is applied to which delete action. A delete_all_records method also has to be called in has_many_through association because of how the methods are chained. This will be refactored later on.
Refactor delete_count method to only handle delete_all or nullify/nil cases and not destroy and switch to if/else rather than case statement. This refactoring allows removal of :all symbol usage.
Rename delete_all_records because this name better describes what the method is doing. We can then remove :all from the hm:t version and pull out the unoptimized call to load_target in delete_records and pass it directly.
|
@tenderlove @GeekOnCoffee fixed! 😸 |
this change was unneccsary as nothing was gained from it
|
Missed the comment about L129 and fixed that as well |
tenderlove
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 14, 2014
…thod Refactor delete_records method
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
delete_recordshad a lot of conditionals and was generally confusing code.This pulls out anything that deals with just
delete_allinto it's own methoddelete_or_nullify_all_recordsfor any association that has delete_all run on it.This uses a new
delete_countmethod that takes a method and a scope and is shared betweendelete_recordsanddelete_or_nullify_all_records. This handles whetherdelete_allorupdate_allis run on the scope — count being the numberupdate_counteris getting passed.The
delete_or_nullify_all_recordsmethod had to be created in hm:t association as well because of how the methods are chained/coupled. I plan to refactor hm:tdelete_recordseventually as well.This has allowed for the removal of using :all symbol to check if we are deleting all records further optimizing the code. I was then able to remove the unoptimized
records = load_target if records == :allindelete_records.The results of delete/delete_all/destroy/destroy_all are the same, this change decouples and improves this part of the code.
cc/ @tenderlove