How to save nil into serialized attribute in Rails 4.2 - ruby-on-rails

Question

I am upgrading an app to Rails 4.2 and am running into an issue where nil values in a field that is serialized as an Array are getting interpreted as an empty array. Is there a way to get Rails 4.2 to differentiate between nil and an empty array for a serialized-as-Array attribute?
Top level problem demonstration:
#[old_app]
> Rails.version
=> "3.0.3"
> a = AsrProperty.new; a.save; a.keeps
=> nil
#[new_app]
> Rails.version
=> "4.2.3"
> a = AsrProperty.new; a.save; a.keeps
=> []
But it is important for my code to distinguish between nil and [], so this is a problem.
The model:
class AsrProperty < ActiveRecord::Base
serialize :keeps, Array
#[...]
end
I think the issue lies with Rails deciding to take a shortcut for attributes that are serialized as a specific type (e.g. Array) by storing the empty instance of that type as nil in the database. This can be seen by looking at the SQL statement executed in each app:
[old_app]: INSERT INTO asr_properties (lock_version, keeps)
VALUES (0, NULL)
Note that the above log line has been edited for clarity; there are other serialized attributes that were being written due to old Rails' behavior.
[new_app]: INSERT INTO asr_properties (lock_version)
VALUES (0)
There is a workaround: by removing the "Array" declaration on the serialization, Rails is forced to save [] and {} differently:
class AsrProperty < ActiveRecord::Base
serialize :keeps #NOT ARRAY
#[...]
end
Changing the statement generated on saving [] to be:
INSERT INTO asr_properties (keeps, lock_version) VALUES ('---[]\n', 0)
Allowing:
> a = AsrProperty.new; a.save; a.keeps
=> nil
I'll use this workaround for now, but:
(1) I feel like declaring a type might allow more efficiency, and also prevents bugs by explicitly prohibiting the wrong data type being stored
(2) I'd really like to figure out the "right" way to do it, if Rails does allow it.
So: can Rails 4.2 be told to store [] as its own thing in a serialized-as-Array attribute?

Answer 1

What's going on?
What you're experiencing is due to how Rails 4 treats the 2nd argument to the serialize call. It changes its behavior based on the three different values the argument can have (more on this in the solution). The last branch here is the one we're interested in as when you pass the Array class, it gets passed to the ActiveRecord::Coders::YAMLColumn instance that is created. The load method receives the YAML from the database and attempts to turn it back into a Ruby object here. If the coder was not given the default class of Object and the yaml argument is nil in the case of a null column, it will return a new instance of the class, hence the empty array.
Solution
There doesn't appear to be a simple Rails-y way to say, "hey, if this is null in the database, give me nil." However looking at the second branch here we see that we can pass any object that implements the load and dump methods or what I call the basic coder protocol.
Example code
One of the members of my team built this simple class to handle just this case.
class NullableSerializer < ActiveRecord::Coders::YAMLColumn
def load(yaml)
return nil if yaml.nil?
super
end
end
This class inherits from the same YAMLColumn class provided by ActiveRecord so it already handles the load and dump methods. We do not need any modifications to dump but we want to slightly handle loading differently. We simply tell it to return nil when the database column is empty and otherwise call super to work as if we made no other modification.
Usage
To use it, it simply needs to be instantiated with your intended serialization class and passed to the Rails serialize method as in the following, using your naming from above:
class AsrProperty < ActiveRecord::Base
serialize :keeps, NullableSerializer.new(Array)
# …
end
The "right" way
Getting things done and getting your code shipped is paramount and I hope this helps you. After all, if the code isn't being used and doing good, who cares how ideal it is?
I would argue that Rails' approach is the right way in this case especially when you take Ruby's philosophy of The Principle of Least Surprise into account. When an attribute can possibly be an array, it should always return that type, even if empty, to avoid having to constantly special case nil. I would argue the same for any database column that you can put a reasonable default on (i.e. t.integer :anything_besides_a_foreign_key, default: 0). I've always been grateful to past-Aaron for remembering this most of the time whenever I get an unexpected NoMethodError: undefined method 'whatever' for nil:NilClass. Almost always my special case for this nil is to supply a sensible default.
This varies greatly on you, your team, your app, and your application and it's needs so it's never hard and fast. It's just something I've found helps me out immensely when I'm working on something and wondering if amount could default to 0 or if there's some reason buried in the code or in the minds of your teammates why it needs to be able to be nil.