Rails core - Jul 2006 - New records now considered equal if their attributes are equal (ActiveRecord, r4552)

Hello list,

In light of this recent change:

--- lib/active_record/base.rb   (revision 4551)
+++ lib/active_record/base.rb   (revision 4552)
@@ -1646,8 +1646,9 @@
        def ==(comparison_object)
          comparison_object.equal?(self) ||
            (comparison_object.instance_of?(self.class) &&
-            comparison_object.id == id &&
-            !comparison_object.new_record?)
+            ((!comparison_object.new_record? && comparison_object.id  
== id) ||
+             (comparison_object.new_record? &&  
comparison_object.attributes == attributes))
+          )
        end


this test needs amending:

test/base_test.rb (revision 4553):
   def test_equality_of_new_records
     assert_not_equal Topic.new, Topic.new
   end

because those two new Topics are now considered equal.

Just a heads-up to anyone else who, like me, missed this change, and  
was a bit confused by the failing test...

Cheers,
Chris

On 7/5/06, Chris Mear <chris@feedmechocolate.com>
wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> In light of this recent change:
That''s a strange change to embed in an oracle fix?   Was it
intentional david?  Michael?

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/changeset/4552

I personally don''t like the change at all, the previous behaviour of
falling back to object_id was definitely more in keeping with
expectations.
> Just a heads-up to anyone else who, like me, missed this change, and
> was a bit confused by the failing test...
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-core mailing list
> Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
>

-- 
Cheers

Koz

> > In light of this recent change:
>
> That''s a strange change to embed in an oracle fix?   Was it
> intentional david?  Michael?
I rolled it back.  The ticket for the change was denied prior to the commit.

-- 
Rick Olson
http://techno-weenie.net

Michael Koziarski wrote:
> That''s a strange change to embed in an oracle fix?   Was it
> intentional david?  Michael?
> 
> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/changeset/4552
Agreed, that wasn''t in my patch. I presume another patch from somebody 
else got applied by mistake?

> Agreed, that wasn''t in my patch. I presume another patch from
somebody
> else got applied by mistake?
Yup, applied by mistake. Rick rolled it back.
-- 
David Heinemeier Hansson
http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.basecamphq.com   -- Online project management
http://www.backpackit.com   -- Personal information manager
http://www.rubyonrails.com  -- Web-application framework