Don't use prepend_before_action when loading/authorizing resources

[jagthedrummer]

Using prepend_before_action causes problems because developers lose the ability to control the order in which callbacks happen.

Maybe fixes #531? (Hard to be sure since I don't know how to reproduce whatever problem people are running into.)

Supersedes #716

[kaspth]

This seems alright to me, though I don't know how to reason about whether there'd be other unforeseen repercussions to this.

I wonder if we can explain this further in the eventual release notes? Or can we support passing prepend: true to get the old behavior?

[jagthedrummer]

Yeah, this definitely strikes me as the kind of change that could definitely have unforeseen consequences. Especially because I don't really understand whatever problem people were running into.

Maybe a prepend param, or a global config option would be a good idea... 🤔

[kaspth]

Yeah, this definitely strikes me as the kind of change that could definitely have unforeseen consequences. Especially because I don't really understand whatever problem people were running into.

Yeah, true. Sometimes these things can be a bit finicky.

I suppose we could do we something like this for a prepend param:

before_actions = [
  -> { before_action() },
  -> { before_action() },
]
before_actions.reverse! if options[:prepend]
before_actions.each(&:call)

I think this would be a relatively easy way to have backwardscompatibility — although it's a bit of do we want to carry this forward, versus just cutting it off and deal with the aftermath?

[jagthedrummer]

although it's a bit of do we want to carry this forward, versus just cutting it off and deal with the aftermath?

🤔 Interesting proposal on using an array. But I don't fully understand how it would work.

Honestly, I'm a little hesitant to merge either until we hear from someone who's experienced the problem that we're trying to fix. I still feel like I'm flying blind on this one.

[jagthedrummer]

@seattlecyclist @aaricpittman Can y'all give this branch a try and see if it fixes the problem you mentioned in #531?