Add test for removing and unloading a record from a hasMany relationship #4987
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Rebased to latest master (ac01921), checking to see if #5011 would resolve this issue. However, I still see the following test errors. The test I just added: A new test failure since |
stefanpenner
suggested changes
Jul 3, 2017
| @@ -1788,6 +1788,37 @@ testInDebug('A sync hasMany errors out if there are unlaoded records in it', fun | |||
| }, /You looked up the 'comments' relationship on a 'post' with id 1 but some of the associated records were not loaded. Either make sure they are all loaded together with the parent record, or specify that the relationship is async \('DS.hasMany\({ async: true }\)'\)/); | |||
| }); | |||
|
|
|||
| testInDebug('After removing and unloading a record, a hasMany relationship should still be valid', function(assert) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we may as well test this always
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changed to always test.
stefanpenner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2017
…rd() For an async relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), now adjusts only the relationship’s currentState, leaving that relationship’s canonical state alone, ensuring the existing client-side delete semantics are preserved. But when that relationship is reloaded, the canonicalState consulted. For sync relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), both currentState and canonical state are updated. This is to mirror the client-side delete semantics. But since we cannot reload a sync relationship we must assume this to be the new canonical state and rely on subsequent `push` or `adapterPayloads` or manual `store.push` to update. This aims to: * [FIX] hasMany arrays never contain dematerialized records (so they no longer become broken) * [FIX] using unloadRecord as a type of client side delete is restored * [PRESERVE] the garbage collector pass to cleanup orphaned models * [PRESERVE] second access to a relationship which did contain an unloadRecord to cause a reload note: if both sides of a relationships are unloaded, the above doesn’t apply. This is largely just when members of a loaded relationship are themselves unloaded. [fixes #4986 #5052 #4987 #4996]
stefanpenner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2017
…rd() For an async relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), now adjusts only the relationship’s currentState, leaving that relationship’s canonical state alone, ensuring the existing client-side delete semantics are preserved. But when that relationship is reloaded, the canonicalState consulted. For sync relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), both currentState and canonical state are updated. This is to mirror the client-side delete semantics. But since we cannot reload a sync relationship we must assume this to be the new canonical state and rely on subsequent `push` or `adapterPayloads` or manual `store.push` to update. This aims to: * [FIX] hasMany arrays never contain dematerialized records (so they no longer become broken) * [FIX] using unloadRecord as a type of client side delete is restored * [PRESERVE] the garbage collector pass to cleanup orphaned models * [PRESERVE] second access to a relationship which did contain an unloadRecord to cause a reload note: if both sides of a relationships are unloaded, the above doesn’t apply. This is largely just when members of a loaded relationship are themselves unloaded. [fixes #4986 #5052 #4987 #4996]
stefanpenner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2017
…rd() For an async relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), now adjusts only the relationship’s currentState, leaving that relationship’s canonical state alone, ensuring the existing client-side delete semantics are preserved. But when that relationship is reloaded, the canonicalState consulted. For sync relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), both currentState and canonical state are updated. This is to mirror the client-side delete semantics. But since we cannot reload a sync relationship we must assume this to be the new canonical state and rely on subsequent `push` or `adapterPayloads` or manual `store.push` to update. This aims to: * [FIX] hasMany arrays never contain dematerialized records (so they no longer become broken) * [FIX] using unloadRecord as a type of client side delete is restored * [PRESERVE] the garbage collector pass to cleanup orphaned models * [PRESERVE] second access to a relationship which did contain an unloadRecord to cause a reload note: if both sides of a relationships are unloaded, the above doesn’t apply. This is largely just when members of a loaded relationship are themselves unloaded. [fixes #4986 #5052 #4987 #4996]
stefanpenner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2017
…rd() For an async relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), now adjusts only the relationship’s currentState, leaving that relationship’s canonical state alone, ensuring the existing client-side delete semantics are preserved. But when that relationship is reloaded, the canonicalState consulted. For sync relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), both currentState and canonical state are updated. This is to mirror the client-side delete semantics. But since we cannot reload a sync relationship we must assume this to be the new canonical state and rely on subsequent `push` or `adapterPayloads` or manual `store.push` to update. This aims to: * [FIX] hasMany arrays never contain dematerialized records (so they no longer become broken) * [FIX] using unloadRecord as a type of client side delete is restored * [PRESERVE] the garbage collector pass to cleanup orphaned models * [PRESERVE] second access to a relationship which did contain an unloadRecord to cause a reload note: if both sides of a relationships are unloaded, the above doesn’t apply. This is largely just when members of a loaded relationship are themselves unloaded. [fixes #4986 #5052 #4987 #4996]
stefanpenner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2017
…rd() For an async relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), now adjusts only the relationship’s currentState, leaving that relationship’s canonical state alone, ensuring the existing client-side delete semantics are preserved. But when that relationship is reloaded, the canonicalState consulted. For sync relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), both currentState and canonical state are updated. This is to mirror the client-side delete semantics. But since we cannot reload a sync relationship we must assume this to be the new canonical state and rely on subsequent `push` or `adapterPayloads` or manual `store.push` to update. This aims to: * [FIX] hasMany arrays never contain dematerialized records (so they no longer become broken) * [FIX] using unloadRecord as a type of client side delete is restored * [PRESERVE] the garbage collector pass to cleanup orphaned models * [PRESERVE] second access to a relationship which did contain an unloadRecord to cause a reload note: if both sides of a relationships are unloaded, the above doesn’t apply. This is largely just when members of a loaded relationship are themselves unloaded. [fixes #4986 #5052 #4987 #4996]
stefanpenner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2017
…rd() For an async relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), now adjusts only the relationship’s currentState, leaving that relationship’s canonical state alone, ensuring the existing client-side delete semantics are preserved. But when that relationship is reloaded, the canonicalState consulted. For sync relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), both currentState and canonical state are updated. This is to mirror the client-side delete semantics. But since we cannot reload a sync relationship we must assume this to be the new canonical state and rely on subsequent `push` or `adapterPayloads` or manual `store.push` to update. This aims to: * [FIX] hasMany arrays never contain dematerialized records (so they no longer become broken) * [FIX] using unloadRecord as a type of client side delete is restored * [PRESERVE] the garbage collector pass to cleanup orphaned models * [PRESERVE] second access to a relationship which did contain an unloadRecord to cause a reload note: if both sides of a relationships are unloaded, the above doesn’t apply. This is largely just when members of a loaded relationship are themselves unloaded. [fixes #4986 #5052 #4987 #4996]
stefanpenner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2017
…rd() For an async relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), now adjusts only the relationship’s currentState, leaving that relationship’s canonical state alone, ensuring the existing client-side delete semantics are preserved. But when that relationship is reloaded, the canonicalState consulted. For sync relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), both currentState and canonical state are updated. This is to mirror the client-side delete semantics. But since we cannot reload a sync relationship we must assume this to be the new canonical state and rely on subsequent `push` or `adapterPayloads` or manual `store.push` to update. This aims to: * [FIX] hasMany arrays never contain dematerialized records (so they no longer become broken) * [FIX] using unloadRecord as a type of client side delete is restored * [PRESERVE] the garbage collector pass to cleanup orphaned models * [PRESERVE] second access to a relationship which did contain an unloadRecord to cause a reload note: if both sides of a relationships are unloaded, the above doesn’t apply. This is largely just when members of a loaded relationship are themselves unloaded. [fixes #4986 #5052 #4987 #4996]
stefanpenner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2017
…rd() For an async relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), now adjusts only the relationship’s currentState, leaving that relationship’s canonical state alone, ensuring the existing client-side delete semantics are preserved. But when that relationship is reloaded, the canonicalState consulted. For sync relationship [x, y] with x.unloadRecord(), both currentState and canonical state are updated. This is to mirror the client-side delete semantics. But since we cannot reload a sync relationship we must assume this to be the new canonical state and rely on subsequent `push` or `adapterPayloads` or manual `store.push` to update. This aims to: * [FIX] hasMany arrays never contain dematerialized records (so they no longer become broken) * [FIX] using unloadRecord as a type of client side delete is restored * [PRESERVE] the garbage collector pass to cleanup orphaned models * [PRESERVE] second access to a relationship which did contain an unloadRecord to cause a reload note: if both sides of a relationships are unloaded, the above doesn’t apply. This is largely just when members of a loaded relationship are themselves unloaded. [fixes #4986 #5052 #4987 #4996]
|
Abandoning since it was merged as part of #5092 |
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.
In relation to #4986.
Note: This test is intentionally failing right now. It is passing if run against a branch prior to 6d96eda.