Add support for paging through randomly sorted results#122
Merged
Conversation
philbudne
approved these changes
May 15, 2026
Contributor
philbudne
left a comment
philbudne
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Optional[bool] = None seems odd to me, Optional[bool] is an old/back-compatible form of bool | None.
I suggest just declaring it defaulting to False randomize: bool = False
(approved regardless)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds client-side support for the new admin-only
randomizeoption for story_list (pairs with mediacloud/web-search#1297).All the test cases in the
SearchStoriesTest, which is the only one I edited, pass for me locally.Note that in the api client here I called the param
randomizedso that the name matchesexpanded. But on the server this is calledrandomize(without thed). I thought it better to catch and fix that here even though I missed it on the server, so it is inconsistent with rest of stack's implementation of this feature. However, now the two param names match in the API client, which will be seen by our eyes more often than the server-side usage. Open to reconsidering.