Equality and better metaprogramming for RecordRef.

[jdfrens]

Improvements to NetSuite::Records::RecordRef.

Improved metaprogramming:

• Implements #respond_to_missing? (to complement #method_missing).

Added equality:

• Must have same type.
• Must have equal non-nil internal ids.
• Internal ids are converted to strings before they are compared.
• All other fields and attributes are ignored.
• #hash is overridden to hash on the string version of the internal id.

[iloveitaly]

My instinct here is to leave the equality operators working as is. This seams to break the principal of least surprise: ActiveRecord, and other DB abstractions I've worked with, don't operate like this; I'm hesitant to break convention with the gems and systems I've worked with in the past.

Any thoughts here @greggroth?

[iloveitaly]

Implements #respond_to_missing? (to complement #method_missing).

Could you explain why you needed to implement this? My meta programming knowledge might be a bit lacking here.

Thanks for the PRs! Keep them coming!

[jdfrens]

Actually, the definition of == here matches up with the one for ActiveRecord (see: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4738439/how-to-test-for-activerecord-object-equality).

I just now found a blog post which suggests a few changes to my definition (like calling super). I'd be happy to make this change.

[jdfrens]

If you don't define #respond_to_missing?, then #respond_to? is inconsistent with the state of the object and #method won't work at all.

# WITHOUT respond_to_missing?
[1] (pry) main: 0> rr = NetSuite::Records::RecordRef.new(foo: 5)
#<NetSuite::Records::RecordRef:0x007fca15b280b8 @internal_id=nil, @external_id=nil, @type=nil, @attributes={:foo=>5}>
[2] (pry) main: 0> rr.foo
5
[3] (pry) main: 0> rr.respond_to?(:foo)
false
[4] (pry) main: 0> rr.method(:foo)
NameError: undefined method `foo' for class `NetSuite::Records::RecordRef'
from (pry):4:in `method'

Honestly, I have no need for this right now, but I wanted equality for my specs. Since I was in this file anyway, I thought I'd add #respond_to_missing?.

[greggroth]

This seems reasonable to me

[drewish]

Looks like there's a year old PR to add respond_to_missing?: #73