-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 457
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fixed and improved sorting #3266
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
@@ -245,6 +245,8 @@ def apply_sorting( | |||
UserSchema, getattr(table, "user_id") == UserSchema.id | |||
) | |||
|
|||
query = query.add_columns(UserSchema.name) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain why this is necessary?
From what I read, this essentially means the query is now a
select(original_query.output, user_name)
query? This would be very confusing IMO, that people using the filter model now suddenly get extra items in their query results
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You may have seen this pattern in different places in this PR. This is needed because eventually we need to order by this column and if we don't add this here, the entire thing fails with an SQLOperationalError
, simply due to the fact that it can not find the column in the initial selection.
I realize this might be confusing at first glance, but as you can see from the code, I did not have to make any adjustments to the Schema -> Response conversion for the corresponding Schemas. This means that our developers won't have to manage it and also, since this is entirely isolated to our internal code, our users will not be affected by it either.
@@ -524,79 +523,3 @@ def get_custom_filters( | |||
) | |||
|
|||
return custom_filters | |||
|
|||
def apply_sorting( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why was the tag sorting removed now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unfortunately, the tests showed that the concatenation of the tags alphabetically did not work as intended and tags were sorted randomly. Until we could figure out a solution, I have decided to disable sorting by tags.
Describe changes
Pre-requisites
Please ensure you have done the following:
develop
and the open PR is targetingdevelop
. If your branch wasn't based on develop read Contribution guide on rebasing branch to develop.Types of changes