Sequel Support

[MafcoCinco]

This is what I hope is the beginning of support for Sequel in Sorcery. These changes are very bare bones, just enough to get things working on my side. I think I made all of the correct additions. Please review and let me know if you would like to include this and if there are any changes/improvements you would like me to make.

Details:

This change adds two dependencies. One is for the Sequel gem itself and the other is for an external plugin called sequel_simple_callbacks which gives Sequel an ActiveRecord-compatible API for class level hooks (before_create, after_create, etc).

I have not added unit tests yet as the GitHub page lists the build as currently broken and that was my experience when when I tried to run the specs locally. When the broken build is resolved on the current version, I will add unit tests to exercise the new Sequel specific code, provided this is a feature you would like to include.

Thanks.

[fzagarzazu]

Hi MafcoCinco,

may I ask why ? what would be the benefits of using sequel ?

I have never used it before so I don't know.

Regards,

[MafcoCinco]

It may just be a personal preference, but it is a fairly popular ORM and I thought it would be good to have support for it in Sorcery, which is an excellent authentication gem.

Here is a link to the documentation page called "Sequel for ActiveRecord Users". There is a section (starts about 1/5 of the way down the page) which discusses differences between ActiveRecord and Sequel.

http://sequel.rubyforge.org/rdoc/files/doc/active_record_rdoc.html

[maca]

+1 for sequel support and ORM agnosticism. Sequel is a really neat ORM, worths checking it out. There's an ActiveModel plugin for sequel.

[undr]

+1
This is really useful pull request for me

[kirs]

Thank you for contributing Sorcery.

First of all, it's better not to bump gem version from PR. Could you fix that and add some test coverage?

[DaveSanders]

+1 as well. I'm tired of devise, but we use sequel in our architectures now.

[arnvald]

@MafcoCinco hey, are you going to continue work on this PR? If not, I'll add some tests, so that it can be merged

@kirs are you going to merge it when it's done, or you think we should already extract it to separate gem as @mje113 did with Couchbase?

[MafcoCinco]

I have no further changes. Thank you.

• Marcus

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Grzegorz Witek notifications@github.comwrote:

@MafcoCinco https://github.com/MafcoCinco hey, are you going to
continue work on this PR? If not, I'll add some tests, so that it can be
merged

@kirs https://github.com/kirs are you going to merge it when it's done,
or you think we should already extract it to separate gem as @mje113https://github.com/mje113did with Couchbase?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/414#issuecomment-34813396
.

[arnvald]

As we're planning to extract adapters, I'll leave it open and schedule for 1.0 release, I'll try to take this code by then and release as separate gem.

[lephyrius]

👍 This would be really good and useful.

[andreimoment]

+1 this would be very useful for me.

[Ch4s3]

I plan to put this on the roadmap so I'm bumping for visibility.

[Ch4s3]

@MafcoCinco any interest in bringing this over to the new org repo? https://github.com/Sorcery/sorcery

[MafcoCinco]

Honestly, I have not looked at this in a long time and am currently not working with Ruby. I don't think I would be the best person for this right now.

[Ch4s3]

@MafcoCinco Thanks for the update. Let us know if that changes.