add-schema #1
add-schema #1
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request expands the schema definitions by introducing multiple new SQLAlchemy auto-schema classes. These additions cover models related to surveys, notifications, mood activities, campaigns, incentives, rewards, emergency contacts, and user consent. In addition, the existing Changes
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
🪧 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
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
mind_matter_api/schemas.py (3)
33-33: Suggest matching field type with the database schema.
The database likely stores an integer primary key forid; consider usingfields.Intinstead offields.Strto reflect the numeric type:- id = fields.Str(dump_only=True) + id = fields.Int(dump_only=True)
44-44: Consider additional validation for username.
Length checks are good, but you may also want to validate for special characters or whitespace to meet typical username constraints.
64-69: SurveyQuestionSchema is standard.
You might consider field-level validations if you want to enforce constraints on question text.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
mind_matter_api/schemas.py(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (1)
mind_matter_api/schemas.py (10)
mind_matter_api/models/users.py (1)
User(4-21)mind_matter_api/models/users_consent.py (1)
UserConsent(4-12)mind_matter_api/models/surveys.py (3)
Survey(4-17)SurveyQuestion(19-30)SurveyResponse(32-43)mind_matter_api/models/survey_answers.py (1)
SurveyAnswer(4-14)mind_matter_api/models/schedules.py (1)
SurveySchedule(4-14)mind_matter_api/models/notifications.py (1)
Notification(4-15)mind_matter_api/models/mood_activities.py (1)
MoodActivityLog(4-14)mind_matter_api/models/campaigns.py (2)
Campaign(4-17)CampaignParticipation(19-30)mind_matter_api/models/incentives_rewards.py (3)
Incentive(4-14)Reward(16-24)RewardRedemption(25-36)mind_matter_api/models/emergency_contacts.py (1)
EmergencyContact(4-11)
🔇 Additional comments (24)
mind_matter_api/schemas.py (24)
3-19: All imports appear consistent and necessary.
They neatly reflect each respective model used in subsequent schemas, with no apparent circular dependencies or redundancies.
24-26: Comment blocks for user schema organization look good.
These additions improve readability.
31-31: Confirm exposure of foreign keys.
Enablinginclude_fk = Truewill serialize foreign keys. This can be perfectly fine, but ensure that exposing these internal IDs poses no security or privacy risk.
38-38: Header comment for user validation is fine.
It provides clear separation.
46-46: Ensure alignment with database fields.
You already storefull_namein theUsermodel, yet here you collectlastname. Confirm it’s intentionally separate or needed.
47-47: Good practice with load_only password.
Hiding passwords in serialized outputs is a security best practice.
54-57: Survey schemas comment block LGTM.
Offers clear organization.
58-63: SurveySchema logic is standard.
AutoSchema usage withinclude_fkis consistent.
71-76: SurveyResponseSchema usage is consistent.
No obvious issues.
78-83: SurveyAnswerSchema logic is straightforward.
No concerns here.
85-90: SurveyScheduleSchema mirrors prior patterns.
Implementation looks consistent.
92-94: Notifications comment block is clear.
Maintains consistent style with the rest of the file.
95-100: NotificationSchema is fine.
Including foreign keys is consistent with other schemas.
102-110: MoodActivityLogSchema looks correct.
Aligns with the model’s fields, no immediate issues.
112-120: CampaignSchema usage is consistent.
No issues identified.
122-127: CampaignParticipationSchema is consistent with model relationships.
All looks good.
129-131: Comment block for Incentive & Reward is fine.
Helps maintain clarity.
132-137: IncentiveSchema is appropriately structured.
No problems.
139-144: RewardSchema usage is standard.
Matches theRewardmodel fields.
146-151: RewardRedemptionSchema aligns with model fields.
Implementation is consistent.
153-155: Comment block for emergency contacts is consistent.
No further feedback needed.
156-161: EmergencyContactSchema is straightforward.
No issues.
163-165: User Consent comment block is uniform.
Organization remains consistent.
166-171: UserConsentSchema referencing user is a good approach.
The partial nesting withonly=("id","username","email")effectively limits sensitive user fields.
| consent_given = fields.Boolean(required=True) | ||
| updated_at = fields.DateTime(dump_only=True) | ||
| created_at = fields.DateTime(dump_only=True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Field name mismatch with model’s share_data.
Your UserConsent model has the boolean column share_data, whereas the schema defines this as consent_given. Unless you explicitly map it using attribute='share_data', it won’t be automatically serialized/deserialized. Suggest aligning the schema field name with the model column:
- consent_given = fields.Boolean(required=True)
+ consent_given = fields.Boolean(required=True, attribute='share_data')📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| consent_given = fields.Boolean(required=True) | |
| updated_at = fields.DateTime(dump_only=True) | |
| created_at = fields.DateTime(dump_only=True) | |
| consent_given = fields.Boolean(required=True, attribute='share_data') | |
| updated_at = fields.DateTime(dump_only=True) | |
| created_at = fields.DateTime(dump_only=True) |
Description
Brief summary of the changes and any relevant context (design doc, screenshots of bugs...).
Fixes # (issue)
Changes
Testing
Describe tests run to verify changes. If manual testing has been done, provide instructions to reproduce.
Checklist:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Refactor
These updates offer a more robust and enriched experience by broadening the available features and ensuring greater data accuracy.