Rails 5.0/5.1: Update to ancestry 3.0.0+ for rails 5.1 fix

[jrafanie]

Rails exists? with empty hash in ancestry 2.2.x was broken by rails PR: 28699

Fixed in ancestry 3.0.0:
stefankroes/ancestry@8c43482

Extracted from #18076

[NickLaMuro]

@kbrock is going to be really happy about this change 😉

Seems good to me. There are some performance improvements in there as well...

Actually, I better make sure that I didn't merge any ancestry patches that should now be removed as a result...

[NickLaMuro]

Looks like I did have a few patches:

#17360
#17511

Might want to look into making sure these are in place in ancestry-3.0.2, or that these don't have negative impacts being there as a result. My for those PRs testing was definitely against < 3.0.0.

[NickLaMuro]

Looks like I did have a few patches:

#17360
#17511

Might want to look into making sure these are in place in ancestry-3.0.2, or that these don't have negative impacts being there as a result. My for those PRs testing was definitely against < 3.0.0.

[NickLaMuro]

(sorry for the duplicate review... forgot to hit "Request changes" on that last one)

[jrafanie]

@NickLaMuro did you want to push changes to remove those patches to my fork? I think it makes sense to have them go together.

[NickLaMuro]

@jrafanie yeah, I can, but it will most likely take a bit of time for me to re-familiarize myself with the changes I made and what now is updated in ancestry-3.0.2.

[miq-bot]

Checked commit jrafanie@4c38f34 with ruby 2.3.3, rubocop 0.52.1, haml-lint 0.20.0, and yamllint 1.10.0
1 file checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 🍪

[kbrock]

#17511 is good (the clear_memoized_variables part is probably neutral`

#17360 is a little redundant. I introduced at least 1/2 of that change to the 3.0 branch of ancestry

the way ancestor_ids are calculated is better now (thanks to this PR in general) - think the parsing enhancements/issues have been fixed.

I didn't see the advantages to caching @_parent_id or @_ancestor_ids -- but I remember you got great benefit here.

Do we want to rewrite this patch to just cache those 2 values (plus the clear part)?

[kbrock]

ok, so this passes tests. Do we know if this is broken or works?

[jrafanie]

ok, so this passes tests. Do we know if this is broken or works?

This passes but fails with the existing patches for ancestry

See also: 7be4efc

[miq-bot]

This pull request is not mergeable. Please rebase and repush.

[kbrock]

Sorry, I jumped the gun on this one LJ ==> #18164

We needed to tweak ancestry_patch

I'm also excited with the changes that got back into ancestry