Bypass readonly? when saving ActiveRecord - ruby-on-rails

Question

I use the readonly? function to mark my Invoice as immutable after they've been sent; for by InvoiceLines, I simply proxy the readonly? function to the Invoice.
A simplified example:
class Invoice < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :invoice_lines
def readonly?; self.invoice_sent? end
end
def InvoiceLine < ActiveRecord::Base
def readonly?; self.invoice.readonly? end
end
This works great, except that in one specific scenario I want to update an InvoiceLine regardless of the readonly? attribute.
Is there are way to do this?
I tried using save(validate: false), but this has no effect. I looked at persistence.rb in the AR source, and that seems to just do:
def create_or_update
raise ReadOnlyRecord if readonly?
...
end
Is there an obvious way to avoid this?
A (somewhat dirty) workaround that I might do in Python:
original = line.readonly?
line.readonly? = lambda: false
line.save()
line.readonly? = original
But this doesn't work in Ruby, since functions aren't first-class objects ...

Answer 1

You can very easily redefine a method in an instantiated object, but the syntax is definition rather than assignment. E.g. when making changes to a schema that required a tweak to an otherwise read-only object, I have been known to use this form:
line = InvoiceLine.last
def line.readonly?; false; end
Et voila, status overridden! What's actually happening is a definition of the readonly? method in the object's eigenclass, not its class. This is really grubbing around inside the guts of the object, though; outside of a schema change it's a serious code smell.
One crude alternative is forcing Rails to write an updated column directly to the database:
line.update_columns(description: "Compliments cost nothing", amount: 0)
and it's mass-destruction equivalent:
InvoiceLine.where(description: "Free Stuff Tuesday").update_all(amount: 0)
but again, neither should appear in production code outside of migrations and, very occasionally, some carefully written framework code. These two bypass all validation and other logic and risk leaving objects in inconsistent/invalid states. It's better to convey the need and behaviour explicitly in your model code & interactions somehow. You could write this:
class InvoiceLine < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_accessor :force_writeable
def readonly?
invoice.readonly? unless force_writeable
end
end
because then client code can say
line.force_writable = true
line.update(description: "new narrative line")
I still don't really like it because it still allows external code to dictate an internal behaviour, and it leaves the object with a state change that other code might trip over. Here's a slightly safer and more rubyish variant:
class InvoiceLine < ActiveRecord::Base
def force_update(&block)
saved_force_update = #_force_update
#_force_update = true
result = yield
#_force_update = saved_force_update
result
end
def readonly?
invoice.readonly? unless #_force_update
end
end
Client code can then write:
line.force_update do
line.update(description: "new description")
end
Finally, and this is probably the most precision mechanism, you can allow just certain attributes to change. You could do that in a before_save callback and throw an exception, but I quite like using this validation that relies on the ActiveRecord dirty attributes module:
class InvoiceLine < ActiveRecord::Base
validate :readonly_policy
def readonly_policy
if invoice.readonly?
(changed - ["description", "amount"]).each do |attr|
errors.add(attr, "is a read-only attribute")
end
end
end
end
I like this a lot; it puts all the domain knowledge in the model, it uses supported and built-in mechanisms, doesn't require any monkey-patching or metaprogramming, doesn't avoid other validations, and gives you nice error messages that can propagate all the way back to the view.

Answer 2

I ran into a similar problem with a single readonly field and worked around it using update_all.
It needs to be an ActiveRecord::Relation so it would be something like this...
Invoice.where(id: id).update_all("field1 = 'value1', field2 = 'value2'")

Answer 3

Here is an answer, but I don't like it. I would recommend to think twice about the design: If you make this data immutable, and you do need to mutate it, then there may be a design issue. Let aside any headache if the ORM and the datastore "differ".
One way is to use the meta programming facilities. Say you want to change the item_num of invoice_line1 to 123, you can proceed with:
invoice_line1.instance_variable_set(:#item_num, 123)
Note that the above will not work directly with ActiveRecord models' attributes, so it would need be adapted. But well, I would really advice to reconsider the design rather than falling for black magic.

Answer 4

Here's an elegant solution how to disallow modification generally but allow it if it is specifically requested:
In your model, add the following two methods:
def readonly?
return false if #bypass_readonly
return true # Replace true by your criteria if necessary
end
def bypass_readonly
#bypass_readonly=true
yield
#bypass_readonly=false
end
Under normal circumstances, your object is still readonly, so no risk of accidentally writing to a readonly object:
mymodel.save! # This raises a readonly error
However in privileged places where you are sure that you want to ignore the readonlyness, you can use:
mymodel.bypass_readonly do
# Set fields as you like
mymodel.save!
end
Everything inside the bypass_readonly block is now allowed despite readonly. Have fun!

Answer 5

This overrides the #readonly? method for one particular only, not affecting anything else:
line.define_singleton_method(:readonly?) { false }

Answer 6

readonly_attrs = described_class.readonly_attributes.dup
described_class.readonly_attributes.clear
# restore readonly rails constraint
described_class.readonly_attributes.merge(readonly_attrs)
This worked for us with Rails 7.