fix: avoid constructing DatasetProcessRule in indexing preview

[wangji0923]

Summary

• replace the preview-only DatasetProcessRule ORM construction in IndexingRunner.indexing_estimate with a lightweight process rule dict
• allow ProcessRuleDict to omit persisted-only fields in preview scenarios
• add a focused unit test to ensure preview estimation does not instantiate DatasetProcessRule

Testing

• DEBUG=false uv run --project api --no-default-groups --group dev --group tools pytest api/tests/unit_tests/core/rag/indexing/test_indexing_runner.py

Closes #31094

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request optimizes the indexing preview functionality by preventing the instantiation of full DatasetProcessRule ORM objects. Instead, it utilizes a more lightweight dictionary representation for processing rules during estimation, which streamlines the process and reduces overhead by avoiding unnecessary database interactions for preview-only operations.

Highlights

• Performance Optimization for Indexing Preview: Replaced the construction of DatasetProcessRule ORM objects with a lightweight dictionary (ProcessRuleDict) in the IndexingRunner.indexing_estimate method, specifically for preview scenarios. This change avoids unnecessary database-related operations when only an estimation is required.
• Flexible ProcessRuleDict Definition: Modified the ProcessRuleDict definition to mark id and dataset_id fields as NotRequired. This allows the dictionary to be used in contexts like preview estimation where these persisted-only fields are not necessary.
• New Unit Test for Preview Logic: Added a focused unit test (test_indexing_estimate_uses_lightweight_preview_process_rule) to explicitly ensure that the DatasetProcessRule ORM object is not instantiated during the indexing preview estimation process, thereby validating the intended optimization.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request successfully refactors the indexing_estimate method to avoid constructing a DatasetProcessRule ORM object during previews, which is a good performance optimization. This is achieved by creating a lightweight dictionary and updating ProcessRuleDict to allow optional id and dataset_id fields. The new unit test is well-written and effectively validates that the ORM object is not instantiated. The changes are solid, and I have just one minor suggestion to improve the robustness of the new test's assertion.

[gemini-code-assist]

The assertion uses dictionary-style access (tmp_processing_rule["rules"]), while the implementation being tested uses the safer .get("rules"). While this works for the current test setup, it makes the test less robust. To better align with the implementation's logic and improve robustness, consider using .get("rules") here as well.

Suggested change

	"rules": tmp_processing_rule["rules"],
	"rules": tmp_processing_rule.get("rules"),

[github-actions]

Pyrefly Diff

No changes detected.