Torque layer dependencies not correctly registered

Context

Due to a confusion with the meaning of Layer.data_layer and Map.data_layers (they are not the same), there are a bunch of pieces of code that are incorrect. This ticket illustrates one of them.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Create a map
2. Add a torque layer on dataset P
3. Add a join analysis to the torque layer, with dataset Q
4. Try to delete dataset Q

Current Result

You are not warned of a dependency with the map .

Expected result

You should be warned.

Additional info

The problem is that Carto::Map.update_dataset_dependencies calls data_layers which does not include torque layers. This mistake is repeated throughout the code (I’m thinking that the layer node style cache might also be affected).

My suggestion here would be to bite the bullet, and instead of fixing this specific issue (it’s as easy as changing data_layers to carto_and_torque_layers), changing the behaviour of data_layers so it behaves consistently with Layer.data_layer?.

[javitonino]

This is the current status of the layer kind methods:

                  | Map models                   | Layer models
base              | all                          | tiled/bg/google/wms
data              | carto                        | carto/torque
user              | tiled/bg/google/wms          | tiled/bg/google/wms
carto_and_torque  | carto/torque                 | N/A
torque            | torque                       | torque
other             | torque                       | N/A
named_map         | carto/tiled/bg/google/wms    | carto/tiled/bg/google/wms
basemap           | N/A                          | tiled/google

My proposal is to standardize so:

base              | tiled/bg/google/wms
data              | carto/torque
user              | *Remove*
carto_and_torque  | *Remove*
torque            | torque
other             | *Remove*
named_map         | carto/tiled/bg/google/wms
basemap           | tiled/google

Alternatively, we could just fix the bug. Looking at how costly would be to change this.

[javitonino]

For sure. I forgot about visualization model until I started implementing this. I created the follow up issue here: https://github.com/CartoDB/cartodb/issues/11553 and reflected the need to update the visualization models as well.