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

make UsingSpecificKey process fast #76

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 16, 2024
Merged

Conversation

kazumatsudo
Copy link
Owner

@kazumatsudo kazumatsudo commented Jan 16, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced data processing by introducing a uniqueness check during operations.
  • Improvements

    • Expanded result handling to support additional outcomes for better data management.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Ensured data integrity by preventing duplicate keys during merge operations.
  • Tests

    • Updated test cases to align with new uniqueness check feature and result handling changes.

@kazumatsudo kazumatsudo self-assigned this Jan 16, 2024
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 16, 2024

Walkthrough

The Scala codebase has been updated to enhance the functionality of merge operations and SQL generation by introducing a checkUnique parameter. This parameter enforces the uniqueness of records where required and modifies the return types of execution methods to handle additional result options. The changes affect both the main application logic and the test suite, ensuring consistency in behavior and results.

Changes

File Pattern Change Summary
src/main/scala/.../Main.scala Added checkUnique parameter to execute method, replaced result variables with more specific ones, and updated output handling.
src/main/scala/.../table/dml/RecordList.scala Updated merge method to support uniqueness check based on checkUnique parameter.
src/main/scala/.../usecase/... Modified execute method signatures to take checkUnique and return four Option values, updated logic accordingly.
src/test/scala/.../table/dml/RecordListSpec.scala
src/test/scala/.../usecase/...Spec.scala
Included checkUnique parameter in method calls within tests, adjusted assertions, and expected output structure.

"In the warren of code, we hop and leap,
🐇 With 'checkUnique' our records keep.
No two alike, in the data's burrow,
A change well made, with logic thorough."

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?

Share

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
    • Generate unit-tests for this file.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit tests for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository from git and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

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 as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Attention: 22 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (5284122) 72.65% compared to head (1ba54a7) 68.55%.

❗ Current head 1ba54a7 differs from pull request most recent head b815d96. Consider uploading reports for the commit b815d96 to get more accurate results

Files Patch % Lines
src/main/scala/Main.scala 0.00% 21 Missing ⚠️
src/main/scala/usecase/UsingSpecificKeyList.scala 75.00% 1 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #76      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.65%   68.55%   -4.11%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines         267      229      -38     
  Branches       35       28       -7     
==========================================
- Hits          194      157      -37     
+ Misses         73       72       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5284122 and 1ba54a7.
Files selected for processing (8)
  • src/main/scala/Main.scala (1 hunks)
  • src/main/scala/domain/table/dml/RecordList.scala (1 hunks)
  • src/main/scala/usecase/ByExhaustiveSearch.scala (3 hunks)
  • src/main/scala/usecase/UsecaseBase.scala (1 hunks)
  • src/main/scala/usecase/UsingSpecificKeyList.scala (2 hunks)
  • src/test/scala/domain/table/dml/RecordListSpec.scala (4 hunks)
  • src/test/scala/usecase/ByExhaustiveSearchSpec.scala (1 hunks)
  • src/test/scala/usecase/UsingSpecificKeyListSpec.scala (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 10
src/main/scala/usecase/UsecaseBase.scala (1)
  • 24-31: The changes to the execute method signature in the UsecaseBase trait, including the addition of the checkUnique parameter and the updated return type, are consistent with the PR objectives.
src/main/scala/domain/table/dml/RecordList.scala (1)
  • 15-31: The implementation of the merge method in the RecordList class correctly uses the checkUnique parameter to enforce key uniqueness as intended.
src/main/scala/usecase/ByExhaustiveSearch.scala (2)
  • 22-29: The execute method in the ByExhaustiveSearch class has been correctly updated to include the checkUnique parameter and the new return type.
  • 52-64: > Note: This review was outside the patches, so it was mapped to the patch with the greatest overlap. Original lines [32-87]

The logic for generating vertex and edge SQL within the execute method of ByExhaustiveSearch properly incorporates the checkUnique parameter.

src/test/scala/domain/table/dml/RecordListSpec.scala (2)
  • 38-57: > Note: This review was outside the patches, so it was mapped to the patch with the greatest overlap. Original lines [17-54]

The test cases in RecordListSpec have been updated to pass the checkUnique parameter to the merge method, aligning with the changes in the RecordList class.

  • 70-70: The test case for failure when checkUnique is true and duplicate keys are present is correctly implemented.
src/test/scala/usecase/UsingSpecificKeyListSpec.scala (1)
  • 30-104: > Note: This review was outside the patches, so it was mapped to the patch with the greatest overlap. Original lines [33-110]

The test case in UsingSpecificKeyListSpec has been correctly updated to include the checkUnique parameter and to assert against the new method signature.

src/main/scala/Main.scala (1)
  • 71-105: The changes in the Main object correctly handle the new checkUnique parameter and the updated return type of the execute method.
src/main/scala/usecase/UsingSpecificKeyList.scala (1)
  • 57-114: > Note: This review was outside the patches, so it was mapped to the patch with the greatest overlap. Original lines [35-111]

The execute method in the UsingSpecificKeyList class has been correctly updated to include the checkUnique parameter and the new return type.

src/test/scala/usecase/ByExhaustiveSearchSpec.scala (1)
  • 24-160: The test cases in ByExhaustiveSearchSpec have been updated to pass the checkUnique parameter to the execute method and to assert against the new method signature.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1ba54a7 and b815d96.
Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/main/scala/Main.scala (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • src/main/scala/Main.scala

@kazumatsudo kazumatsudo merged commit 249fc62 into main Jan 16, 2024
@kazumatsudo kazumatsudo deleted the refactor/make_process_fast branch January 16, 2024 09:09
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

2 participants