I need a sanity check please! Are these two things friendly or just a bad idea? I have never been able to run the tests for 1.9.2 under 2-3-stable due to a "uninitialized constant ActiveSupport::OrderedHash" error. However, I can run basic rails 2.3 apps under 1.9.2 but notice that things like AR associations on a model can cause things to slow down so badly that 1.8.6 beats it. If this expected is there a interest in fixing it? I ask because if 1.9.1 is not a 3.x friendly version but is what is expected for the max 2.3 app, then it makes a ruby vm upgrade path for said apps on deployed boxes a bit of a double jump. Thoughts? Sanity check? - Ken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
i am in the process of migrating a huge 2.3 app to 1.9.2
at least you should apply this patch:
http://groups.google.de/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/d0d1e804f2fcac20/51798525d3b4929e?pli=1
--- a/association_collection.rb 2010-10-20 13:22:58.629947001 -0400
+++ b/association_collection.rb 2010-10-20 13:22:54.509947004 -0400
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@
if block_given?
super { |*block_args| yield(*block_args) }
else
- super
+ super unless method.to_s == "respond_to_missing?"
end
elsif @reflection.klass.scopes.include?(method)
@reflection.klass.scopes[method].call(self, *args)
best
paul
Am 28.10.2010 um 16:12 schrieb Ken Collins:
>
> I need a sanity check please!
>
> Are these two things friendly or just a bad idea? I have never been able to
run the tests for 1.9.2 under 2-3-stable due to a "uninitialized constant
ActiveSupport::OrderedHash" error. However, I can run basic rails 2.3 apps
under 1.9.2 but notice that things like AR associations on a model can cause
things to slow down so badly that 1.8.6 beats it.
>
> If this expected is there a interest in fixing it? I ask because if 1.9.1
is not a 3.x friendly version but is what is expected for the max 2.3 app, then
it makes a ruby vm upgrade path for said apps on deployed boxes a bit of a
double jump. Thoughts? Sanity check?
>
>
> - Ken
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
>
Gruß
Paul
!DSPAM:4cc986ce55518263013727!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Incidentally, that is against this bug: https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5410-multiple-database-queries-when-chaining-named-scopes-with-rails-238-and-ruby-192 On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Paul Sponagl <paul@sponagl.de> wrote:> i am in the process of migrating a huge 2.3 app to 1.9.2 > > at least you should apply this patch: > > > http://groups.google.de/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/d0d1e804f2fcac20/51798525d3b4929e?pli=1 > > --- a/association_collection.rb 2010-10-20 13:22:58.629947001 -0400 > +++ b/association_collection.rb 2010-10-20 13:22:54.509947004 -0400 > @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ > if block_given? > super { |*block_args| yield(*block_args) } > else > - super > + super unless method.to_s == "respond_to_missing?" > end > elsif @reflection.klass.scopes.include?(method) > @reflection.klass.scopes[method].call(self, *args) > > > > > > best > paul > > > Am 28.10.2010 um 16:12 schrieb Ken Collins: > > > > > I need a sanity check please! > > > > Are these two things friendly or just a bad idea? I have never been able > to run the tests for 1.9.2 under 2-3-stable due to a "uninitialized constant > ActiveSupport::OrderedHash" error. However, I can run basic rails 2.3 apps > under 1.9.2 but notice that things like AR associations on a model can cause > things to slow down so badly that 1.8.6 beats it. > > > > If this expected is there a interest in fixing it? I ask because if 1.9.1 > is not a 3.x friendly version but is what is expected for the max 2.3 app, > then it makes a ruby vm upgrade path for said apps on deployed boxes a bit > of a double jump. Thoughts? Sanity check? > > > > > > - Ken > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<rubyonrails-core%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gruß > > Paul > > > > > !DSPAM:4cc986ce55518263013727! > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<rubyonrails-core%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Helpful, but I''m not sure I''m getting the sanity check I need. Does this mean you can run the ActiveRecord tests? Is it supported? Will it be supported? Is it slow like I am seeing, etc? What is the official status, etc? - Ken> i am in the process of migrating a huge 2.3 app to 1.9.2 > at least you should apply this patch: > > http://groups.google.de/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/d0d1e804f2fcac20/51798525d3b4929e?pli=1 > > > Am 28.10.2010 um 16:12 schrieb Ken Collins: > >> >> I need a sanity check please! >> >> Are these two things friendly or just a bad idea? I have never been able to run the tests for 1.9.2 under 2-3-stable due to a "uninitialized constant ActiveSupport::OrderedHash" error. However, I can run basic rails 2.3 apps under 1.9.2 but notice that things like AR associations on a model can cause things to slow down so badly that 1.8.6 beats it. >> >> If this expected is there a interest in fixing it? I ask because if 1.9.1 is not a 3.x friendly version but is what is expected for the max 2.3 app, then it makes a ruby vm upgrade path for said apps on deployed boxes a bit of a double jump. Thoughts? Sanity check? >> >> >> - Ken-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Unless someone says they can run the tests (specifically ActiveRecord in my case) then I am going to take this as a sign that it is unsupported by the core team. The lighthouse activity on the related issues would seem to suggest such as well. So, if I have not completely gotten that wrong is there a reason why and would I be naive to even suggest a series of patches? I am thinking there is a big reason for the tests not running for 2-3-stable under 1.9.2 akin to why 1.9.1 is not considered an option for 3.x. If there is such a reason then patches would be a waste if time and a outside in hack since the tests could not be run to verify. What should I do? What can I do to help? On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Ken Collins <ken@metaskills.net> wrote:> > Helpful, but I''m not sure I''m getting the sanity check I need. Does this mean you can run the ActiveRecord tests? Is it supported? Will it be supported? Is it slow like I am seeing, etc? What is the official status, etc? > > - Ken > > >> i am in the process of migrating a huge 2.3 app to 1.9.2 >> at least you should apply this patch: >> >> http://groups.google.de/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/d0d1e804f2fcac20/51798525d3b4929e?pli=1 >> >> >> Am 28.10.2010 um 16:12 schrieb Ken Collins: >> >>> >>> I need a sanity check please! >>> >>> Are these two things friendly or just a bad idea? I have never been able to run the tests for 1.9.2 under 2-3-stable due to a "uninitialized constant ActiveSupport::OrderedHash" error. However, I can run basic rails 2.3 apps under 1.9.2 but notice that things like AR associations on a model can cause things to slow down so badly that 1.8.6 beats it. >>> >>> If this expected is there a interest in fixing it? I ask because if 1.9.1 is not a 3.x friendly version but is what is expected for the max 2.3 app, then it makes a ruby vm upgrade path for said apps on deployed boxes a bit of a double jump. Thoughts? Sanity check? >>> >>> >>> - Ken > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 02:13:43PM -0400, Ken Collins wrote:> Unless someone says they can run the tests (specifically ActiveRecord in my case) then I am going to take this as a sign that it is unsupported by the core team. The lighthouse activity on the related issues would seem to suggest such as well. > > So, if I have not completely gotten that wrong is there a reason why and would I be naive to even suggest a series of patches? I am thinking there is a big reason for the tests not running for 2-3-stable under 1.9.2 akin to why 1.9.1 is not considered an option for 3.x. If there is such a reason then patches would be a waste if time and a outside in hack since the tests could not be run to verify. > > What should I do? What can I do to help?I don''t know of any reason why 2-3-stable *shouldn''t* work with 1.9.2. I''m personally not testing 2-3-stable against 1.9.2, but if you provide patches to make it work, I''m happy to test and apply them. -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/
The slowdown for associations was bc it was doing things like querying the entire association before doing a count. This is bc 192 caused additional method missing calls. I haven''t found any other issues in the last few weeks of using 192 but that''s totally anecdotal Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Ken Collins <ken@metaskills.net> wrote:> > Helpful, but I''m not sure I''m getting the sanity check I need. Does this mean you can run the ActiveRecord tests? Is it supported? Will it be supported? Is it slow like I am seeing, etc? What is the official status, etc? > > - Ken > > >> i am in the process of migrating a huge 2.3 app to 1.9.2 >> at least you should apply this patch: >> >> http://groups.google.de/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/d0d1e804f2fcac20/51798525d3b4929e?pli=1 >> >> >> Am 28.10.2010 um 16:12 schrieb Ken Collins: >> >>> >>> I need a sanity check please! >>> >>> Are these two things friendly or just a bad idea? I have never been able to run the tests for 1.9.2 under 2-3-stable due to a "uninitialized constant ActiveSupport::OrderedHash" error. However, I can run basic rails 2.3 apps under 1.9.2 but notice that things like AR associations on a model can cause things to slow down so badly that 1.8.6 beats it. >>> >>> If this expected is there a interest in fixing it? I ask because if 1.9.1 is not a 3.x friendly version but is what is expected for the max 2.3 app, then it makes a ruby vm upgrade path for said apps on deployed boxes a bit of a double jump. Thoughts? Sanity check? >>> >>> >>> - Ken > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
> I don''t know of any reason why 2-3-stable *shouldn''t* work with 1.9.2. > I''m personally not testing 2-3-stable against 1.9.2, but if you provide > patches to make it work, I''m happy to test and apply them.During the 2.3.x release cycle we were tracking pretty close to 100% 1.9 compatibility (I think that was 1.9.1 then?), but the release dates basically didn''t line up. After 2.3.0 shipped the 1.9 series diverged and a bunch of incompatibilities arrived. So yeah, it definitely isn''t deliberate. The only potential gotcha with applying 1.9.2 related patches is that they have to work with 1.8.6 too which was still in debian stable when we shipped 2.3.x -- Cheers Koz -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:59:56AM +1300, Michael Koziarski wrote:> > I don''t know of any reason why 2-3-stable *shouldn''t* work with 1.9.2. > > I''m personally not testing 2-3-stable against 1.9.2, but if you provide > > patches to make it work, I''m happy to test and apply them. > > During the 2.3.x release cycle we were tracking pretty close to 100% > 1.9 compatibility (I think that was 1.9.1 then?), but the release > dates basically didn''t line up. After 2.3.0 shipped the 1.9 series > diverged and a bunch of incompatibilities arrived. So yeah, it > definitely isn''t deliberate. > > The only potential gotcha with applying 1.9.2 related patches is that > they have to work with 1.8.6 too which was still in debian stable when > we shipped 2.3.xReally? I thought 2.3.x was 1.8.7+? -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/
I created a ticket for not being able to run the ActiveRecord tests due to some loading error that I can not fathom. https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5887 I commented on ticket #5410 about running the tests too. I would be happy to do some more profiling and finding ways of making 2-3-stable as fast as 1.9.1 once I figure out my test failure. - Thanks for the feedback. Ken On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Aaron Patterson wrote:> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:59:56AM +1300, Michael Koziarski wrote: >>> I don''t know of any reason why 2-3-stable *shouldn''t* work with 1.9.2. >>> I''m personally not testing 2-3-stable against 1.9.2, but if you provide >>> patches to make it work, I''m happy to test and apply them. >> >> During the 2.3.x release cycle we were tracking pretty close to 100% >> 1.9 compatibility (I think that was 1.9.1 then?), but the release >> dates basically didn''t line up. After 2.3.0 shipped the 1.9 series >> diverged and a bunch of incompatibilities arrived. So yeah, it >> definitely isn''t deliberate. >> >> The only potential gotcha with applying 1.9.2 related patches is that >> they have to work with 1.8.6 too which was still in debian stable when >> we shipped 2.3.x > > Really? I thought 2.3.x was 1.8.7+? > > -- > Aaron Patterson > http://tenderlovemaking.com/-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
I am able to run test_mysql ok - rails 2.3.10 and ruby 1.9.2p0. 5 errors and 2 failures.. On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Ken Collins <ken@metaskills.net> wrote:> > I created a ticket for not being able to run the ActiveRecord tests due to > some loading error that I can not fathom. > https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5887 > > I commented on ticket #5410 about running the tests too. I would be happy > to do some more profiling and finding ways of making 2-3-stable as fast as > 1.9.1 once I figure out my test failure. > > > - Thanks for the feedback. > Ken > > On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Aaron Patterson wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:59:56AM +1300, Michael Koziarski wrote: > >>> I don''t know of any reason why 2-3-stable *shouldn''t* work with 1.9.2. > >>> I''m personally not testing 2-3-stable against 1.9.2, but if you provide > >>> patches to make it work, I''m happy to test and apply them. > >> > >> During the 2.3.x release cycle we were tracking pretty close to 100% > >> 1.9 compatibility (I think that was 1.9.1 then?), but the release > >> dates basically didn''t line up. After 2.3.0 shipped the 1.9 series > >> diverged and a bunch of incompatibilities arrived. So yeah, it > >> definitely isn''t deliberate. > >> > >> The only potential gotcha with applying 1.9.2 related patches is that > >> they have to work with 1.8.6 too which was still in debian stable when > >> we shipped 2.3.x > > > > Really? I thought 2.3.x was 1.8.7+? > > > > -- > > Aaron Patterson > > http://tenderlovemaking.com/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<rubyonrails-core%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
> Really? I thought 2.3.x was 1.8.7+?I have a couple of apps that run 2.3.x on old debian boxes with 1.8.6, so perhaps I''m mistaken in terms of "official"" support, but it definitely works fine :) -- Cheers Koz -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Aaron Patterson <aaron@tenderlovemaking.com> wrote:> Really? I thought 2.3.x was 1.8.7+?I believe that requirement was introduced only for 3.0. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
I posted a new patch for this issue today which should get to the root of the problem. AssociationProxy calls undef_method unless the method name is caught be a regular expression. On 1.9.2 this caused the default respond_to_missing? to be undefined. With the default out of the way, it then reverted to using method_missing... https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/5410 On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Will Bryant <will.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Aaron Patterson > <aaron@tenderlovemaking.com> wrote: > > Really? I thought 2.3.x was 1.8.7+? > > I believe that requirement was introduced only for 3.0. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<rubyonrails-core%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.