If Arel does not have the predicate you are looking for, consider monkey patching it:

I’ve heard-suggested that ActiveSupport, which does a ton of monkey-patching of core classes, would make potentially-nice refinements. I don’t hold this opinion strongly, but I disagree with that idea. A big value proposition of ActiveSupport is that it is “omnipresent” and sets a new baseline for ruby behaviors - as such, being global really makes the most sense. I don’t know that anyone would be pleased to sprinkle using ActiveSupport in all their files that use it - they don’t even want to THINK about the fact that they’re using it.

Create a new controller to override the original: app/controllers/active_storage/blobs_controller.rb

ActiveSupport.on_load :active_storage_blob do def accessible_to?(accessor) attachments.includes(:record).any? { |attachment| attachment.accessible_to?(accessor) } || attachments.none? end end ActiveSupport.on_load :active_storage_attachment do def accessible_to?(accessor) record.try(:accessible_to?, accessor) end end ActiveSupport.on_load :action_text_rich_text do def accessible_to?(accessor) record.try(:accessible_to?, accessor) end end module ActiveStorage::Authorize extend ActiveSupport::Concern included do before_action :require_authorization end private def require_authorization head :forbidden unless authorized? end def authorized? @blob.accessible_to?(Current.identity) end end Rails.application.config.to_prepare do ActiveStorage::Blobs::RedirectController.include ActiveStorage::Authorize ActiveStorage::Blobs::ProxyController.include ActiveStorage::Authorize ActiveStorage::Representations::RedirectController.include ActiveStorage::Authorize ActiveStorage::Representations::ProxyController.include ActiveStorage::Authorize end

I have a rule that I won't allow Capybara to be monkey-patched in Poltergeist. This gives some indication to users about whether something is non-standard. So basically all non-standard stuff must be on page.driver rather than page (or a node).

If you prefer monkeypatching (around 70) linguistics methods directly onto core classes, you can do that by adding a 'monkeypatch' option to ::use:

Yes, you are right. That was a very bad workaround. Stubbing methods on NilClass can be compared to switching to dark side of force. Powerful but comes with a huge price. I highly don't recommend using my workaround from 1 year ago.

patch: -> { step Destroy.method(:tidy_storage), before: :delete_model }

Patching has no implicit, magical side-effects and is strongly encouraged to customize flows for a specific case in a quick and consise way.

Another solution is using the Safe Navigation Operator &. introduced in Ruby 2.3 which is a bit better because this is a language feature rather than an opinionated runtime environment pollution

I don't see a way to hook into Devise's route mapping load process to add the action (several monkey patching attempts failed)

According to this comment you might want to override the structurally_incompatible_values_for_or to overcome the issue: def structurally_incompatible_values_for_or(other) Relation::SINGLE_VALUE_METHODS.reject { |m| send("#{m}_value") == other.send("#{m}_value") } + (Relation::MULTI_VALUE_METHODS - [:eager_load, :references, :extending]).reject { |m| send("#{m}_values") == other.send("#{m}_values") } + (Relation::CLAUSE_METHODS - [:having, :where]).reject { |m| send("#{m}_clause") == other.send("#{m}_clause") } end

There are other features you *could* actually polyfill, such as Array.of, Number.isNaN or Object.assign, because those don’t introduce syntax changes to the language – except that you shouldn’t.

Polyfills are naughty as they patch native APIs, while ponyfills are pure and don't affect the environment.

How are ponyfills better than polyfills? A polyfill is code that adds missing functionality by monkey patching an API. Unfortunately, it usually globally patches built-ins, which affects all code running in the environment. This is especially problematic when a polyfill is not fully spec compliant (which in some cases is impossible), as it could cause very hard to debug bugs and inconsistencies. Or when the spec for a new feature changes and your code depends on behavior that a module somewhere else in the dependency tree polyfills differently. In general, you should not modify API's you don't own.

But I'll definitely take underscore mixins over extending String.prototype or other clunky implementations any day.

Instead of re-opening Ruby classes like that (I get involuntary twitches), for our little exercise we are going to invent another name

prepend_message