Closed fractaledmind closed 5 years ago
Merging #43 into master will increase coverage by
<.01%
. The diff coverage is100%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #43 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 99.76% 99.76% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 17 17
Lines 419 420 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 418 419 +1
Misses 1 1
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
lib/active_set/sorting/active_record_strategy.rb | 100% <100%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 53a042d...f5286d8. Read the comment docs.
@riyengar8: Be sure to check this PR out. This standardizes how sorting with NULL values is handled in ActiveRecord, across all DB engines. As laid out in this S/O answer and your original Enumerable PR, different SQL engines handle NULL sorting differently. This is a pain for a few reasons, but most notably in testing. I want ActiveSet
to behave in an ordeal fashion, which means that sorting should have the same output regardless of how that instruction is processed.
Perhaps at some point in the future, the "heavy nulls" behavior here should be a configuration option (the user may desire the opposite). It can be tied with the same behavior in Enumerable sets for consistency (such that the same configuration option effects both types of sets in the same way). Having such an option also affords a convenient piece of documentation for the behavior. If this seems like a good idea to you I can open a pull request.
That seems like a great idea
…s Enumerable sorting, where NULL values are sorted as if larger than any non-null value