Skip to content
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

feat: Approval data return a dictionary instead of array of hashes #437

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 16, 2022

Conversation

juanmahidalgo
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 1988329668

  • 3 of 3 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.007%) to 67.933%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 1987687748: 0.007%
Covered Lines: 2272
Relevant Lines: 3197

💛 - Coveralls

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ export class Item extends Model<ItemAttributes> {
FROM ${raw(this.tableName)} items
JOIN ${raw(
ItemCuration.tableName
)} item_curations ON items.id = item_curations.item_id AND
)} item_curations ON items.id = item_curations.item_id
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was thinking that the tree to be built requires not only this data, but the data of all the items that are published for a third party. We need all the data to re-build the tree, and the tree is built with all the items of a third party.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

True, I think then that the query should not check for curation status but rather for curation "existence", which is already being done by the INNER JOIN right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Alright, as Nico suggested, we can take care of that in another PR. Issue created: #439

Copy link
Contributor

@nicosantangelo nicosantangelo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes are 💯
The conversation here can be done in another issue

@juanmahidalgo juanmahidalgo merged commit 3c4222b into master Mar 16, 2022
@juanmahidalgo juanmahidalgo deleted the fix/tp-approval-data branch March 16, 2022 10:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants