Make jsonapi local relationship always a resource #1320
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve a significant refactoring of the relationship handling within the codebase. The Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant A as Application
participant B as jsonapi-mixin.js
participant C as Model/Collection
A->>B: Call parseRelationship(relationship)
B->>B: Check relationship validity
B-->>A: Return {id, type} for each relationship item
A->>C: Process relationships with new structure
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (6)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (5)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
Finishing Touches
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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (6)
- src/js/base/jsonapi-mixin.js (1 hunks)
- src/js/entities-service/entities/actions.js (0 hunks)
- src/js/entities-service/entities/flows.js (0 hunks)
- src/js/entities-service/entities/form-responses.js (0 hunks)
- src/js/entities-service/entities/program-actions.js (0 hunks)
- src/js/entities-service/entities/program-flows.js (0 hunks)
Files not reviewed due to no reviewable changes (5)
- src/js/entities-service/entities/actions.js
- src/js/entities-service/entities/flows.js
- src/js/entities-service/entities/form-responses.js
- src/js/entities-service/entities/program-actions.js
- src/js/entities-service/entities/program-flows.js
Additional comments not posted (1)
src/js/base/jsonapi-mixin.js (1)
25-25: LGTM!The consolidation of the initial checks for the
relationshipparameter into a single conditional statement improves code readability and maintainability without altering the functionality.
|
|
||
| return map(relationship, item => { | ||
| const itemRelationship = { id: item.id }; | ||
| const itemRelationship = { id: item.id, type: item.type }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
Approve the change, but ensure comprehensive testing and updates.
The modification to include both id and type for each item in the relationship array aligns with the existing pattern of using underscore-prefixed properties for relationships in the codebase. This change enhances the data structure and provides more detailed representation of relationship items.
However, given the widespread use of underscore-prefixed properties across various components and files, it's crucial to:
- Thoroughly test the impact of this change on all parts of the application that interact with relationship objects.
- Update any code that may be expecting only the
idin the relationship object to now handle bothidandtype. - Pay special attention to instances of
fooModel.get('_,...,fooModel.set('_..., andfooModel.set({ _...as mentioned in the PR description, and ensure they correctly handle the new structure.
While the change is approved, it's important to proceed with caution and ensure that all affected parts of the codebase are updated and tested accordingly.
Analysis chain
Verify the impact of the relationship object structure change.
The modification to include both id and type for each item in the relationship array aligns with the PR objective of treating local relationships as resources. This change enhances the data structure returned for relationships, providing more detailed representation of the relationship items.
Please ensure that the rest of the codebase is updated to handle the new structure of the relationship objects. Pay special attention to instances of fooModel.get('_,..., fooModel.set('_..., and fooModel.set({ _... as mentioned in the PR description.
Run the following script to verify the usage of the _ prefixed properties:
These new scripts should help us gather more comprehensive information about the usage of underscore-prefixed properties and model structures in the codebase. This will allow us to better assess the impact of the relationship object structure change.
These corrected scripts should now execute without syntax errors and provide us with the necessary information to assess the impact of the relationship object structure change on the codebase.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of the `_` prefixed properties in the codebase.
# Test 1: Search for `fooModel.get('_,...` usage.
# Expect: Review the results to ensure they handle the new relationship object structure.
rg --type js -A 5 $'fooModel\.get\(\'_'
# Test 2: Search for `fooModel.set('_...` usage.
# Expect: Review the results to ensure they handle the new relationship object structure.
rg --type js -A 5 $'fooModel\.set\(\'_'
# Test 3: Search for `fooModel.set({ _...` usage.
# Expect: Review the results to ensure they handle the new relationship object structure.
rg --type js -A 5 $'fooModel\.set\(\{ _'
Length of output: 127
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Perform a broader search for usage of underscore-prefixed properties and model definitions
# Test 1: Search for any .get('_ usage
echo "Searching for .get('_ usage:"
rg --type js -A 3 '\.get\(\'_'
# Test 2: Search for any .set('_ usage
echo "Searching for .set('_ usage:"
rg --type js -A 3 '\.set\(\'_'
# Test 3: Search for any ._someProperty usage
echo "Searching for ._someProperty usage:"
rg --type js -A 3 '\._\w+'
# Test 4: Search for model definitions or imports
echo "Searching for model definitions or imports:"
rg --type js -A 3 '(class\s+\w+Model|import.*Model)'
# Test 5: Search for any usage of underscore-prefixed properties in object literals
echo "Searching for underscore-prefixed properties in object literals:"
rg --type js -A 3 '\{\s*_\w+:'
Length of output: 682
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Perform a broader search for usage of underscore-prefixed properties and model definitions (corrected version)
# Test 1: Search for any .get('_ usage
echo "Searching for .get('_ usage:"
rg --type js -A 3 "\.get\('_"
# Test 2: Search for any .set('_ usage
echo "Searching for .set('_ usage:"
rg --type js -A 3 "\.set\('_"
# Test 3: Search for any ._someProperty usage
echo "Searching for ._someProperty usage:"
rg --type js -A 3 "\._\w+"
# Test 4: Search for model definitions or imports
echo "Searching for model definitions or imports:"
rg --type js -A 3 "class\s+\w+Model"
rg --type js -A 3 "import.*Model"
# Test 5: Search for any usage of underscore-prefixed properties in object literals
echo "Searching for underscore-prefixed properties in object literals:"
rg --type js -A 3 "\{\s*_\w+:"
Length of output: 91518
paulfalgout
force-pushed
the
consistent-relationships
branch
from
3f33279 to
4e5c7ae
Compare
Shortcut Story ID: [sc-55079]
This is potentially the final step, but we should be able to apply changes mostly without test updates until things are fixed.
We need to look for
fooModel.get('_,...fooModel.set('_...andfooModel.set({ _...and make sure we're handling resources{ id, type }and not just ids.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
idandtypefor each item, improving clarity and detail in relationships.Bug Fixes
Refactor