[WIP] APIv4: allow a field named "is_active" to default to false

[semseysandor]

Overview

If an entity has a field named "is_active" and it's default is defined as 0 in the schema, APIv4 overrides it to 1.
This effectively prevents these entities to be created as not active by default (when "is_active" is omitted from parameters).

Before

(Output trimmed for brevity)

$ cv api4 Dashboard.create
[
    {
        "id": 17,
        "is_active": true,
    }
]

After

(Output trimmed for brevity)

$ cv api4 Dashboard.create
[
    {
        "id": 18,
    }
]
$ cv api4 Dashboard.get +w 'id = 18'
[
    {
        "id": 18,
        "is_active": false,
    }
]

Technical Details

Similar to #27302

Comments

I ran into this in an extension, so it's possible to rename the field to "is_enabled" or something like that to workaround this limitation.
But there is one example in core: Dashboard entity, where APIv4 don't follow specifications, so this should be fixed.

[civibot]

🤖 Thank you for contributing to CiviCRM! ❤️ We will need to test and review this PR. 👷

Introduction for new contributors...

• If this is your first PR, an admin will greenlight automated testing with the command ok to test or add to whitelist.
• A series of tests will automatically run. You can see the results at the bottom of this page (if there are any problems, it will include a link to see what went wrong).
• A demo site will be built where anyone can try out a version of CiviCRM that includes your changes.
• If this process needs to be repeated, an admin will issue the command test this please to rerun tests and build a new demo site.
• Before this PR can be merged, it needs to be reviewed. Please keep in mind that reviewers are volunteers, and their response time can vary from a few hours to a few weeks depending on their availability and their knowledge of this particular part of CiviCRM.
• A great way to speed up this process is to "trade reviews" with someone - find an open PR that you feel able to review, and leave a comment like "I'm reviewing this now, could you please review mine?" (include a link to yours). You don't have to wait for a response to get started (and you don't have to stop at one!) the more you review, the faster this process goes for everyone 😄
• To ensure that you are credited properly in the final release notes, please add yourself to contributor-key.yml
• For more information about contributing, see CONTRIBUTING.md.

Quick links for reviewers...

• ➡️ PR Demo site (can be rebuilt with the command test this please).
• 📖 Review standards
• 🗒️ Review template (brief or verbose)

➡️ Online demo of this PR 🔗

[colemanw]

Oof, I forgot this code existed. I think we should just delete it. Our schema used to be very inconsistent but there's been a lot of work lately to clean up boolean columns and ensure they always have the correct default set at the sql level so I think we can rely on that now and get rid of this.

[semseysandor]

OK. What about the test?
It seems a bit redundant after deletion, but more test is usually better than less 😃

[colemanw]

Yes keep it. Always good to have a test!

[semseysandor]

Removed. I've squashed the commits for nicer history.

[colemanw]

Perfect. Let's see what the test suite thinks of this.

[semseysandor]

Looks like test suite doesn't like it...
I believe the reason is a missing <default>1</default> on civicrm_acl.is_active.
I've added a quick hack to simulate that and to verify tests pass with that.

[semseysandor]

Quick hack didn't work so I did the proper way 😄
Missing default on civicrm_acl.is_active is just part of the reasons... Though there are 2 less failing test cases.

Seems, we need to go through the rest of the failing tests.
I think it's better to divide this PR into smaller parts and extract missing default on civicrm_acl.is_active as it's independent of this and needs to fixed anyway.

[colemanw]

Reopened as #27846 and #27853