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

fix(range-bounds): observe inclusive range bounds #9364

Merged
merged 3 commits into from May 7, 2018

Conversation

mjy78
Copy link
Contributor

@mjy78 mjy78 commented Apr 27, 2018

Pull Request check-list

Please make sure to review and check all of these items:

  • Does npm run test or npm run test-DIALECT pass with this change (including linting)?
  • Does the description below contain a link to an existing issue (Closes #[issue]) or a description of the issue you are solving?
  • Have you added new tests to prevent regressions?
  • Is a documentation update included (if this change modifies existing APIs, or introduces new ones)?
  • Did you follow the commit message conventions explained in CONTRIBUTING.md?

Description of change

Ensure the 'inclusive' property on range bounds is not lost when querying.

Closes #8176, #8471

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 27, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #9364 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@mjy78 mjy78 force-pushed the master branch 3 times, most recently from 9f9ec8f to a6e10ab Compare May 2, 2018 08:42
lib/utils.js Outdated
@@ -130,6 +130,13 @@ exports.formatNamedParameters = formatNamedParameters;
function cloneDeep(obj) {
obj = obj || {};
return _.cloneDeepWith(obj, elem => {
// Special handling for the inclusive array property (for range types)
if (Array.isArray(elem) && elem.hasOwnProperty('inclusive')) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This will execute for each clone operation I would like to avoid this if possible, there is also one more issue #8471

As you are using this type in real world, what do you think about having range type store values like

[{  
  value: 10,
  inclusive: true
}, {
  value: 10,
  inclusive: true
}]

Rather than having non-standard array property?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree that not having to worry about special handling for the non-standard "inclusive" array property would be much cleaner. We should move to a standard representation of range types for both query predicates and query results ensuring the inclusive property is still maintained when results are converted to JSON.

This will be a breaking change though, as we (and I expect many others) have a lot of code that expects range values returned in query results to be of the form

[ 10, 10 ]

Another approach might be to allow range types to have a 3rd "options" element in the array. When querying/inserting you could define your range as any of

[ 10, 10 ] // Defaults to inclusive [true, false]
[ 10, 10, { inclusive: true }]
[ 10, 10, { inclusive: [ true, false ] }]

Query results would always be returned as

[ 10, 10, { inclusive: [ true, false ] }]

This will still be a breaking change, but may lessen the impact on those queries that currently use ranges in their default form (without being concerned about inclusivity).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As we are under v5 beta process I would prefer just do one time switch to proper format, which will solve both clone and stringify issues

[{  
  value: 10,
  inclusive: true
}, {
  value: 10,
  inclusive: true
}]

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No problem. Is it ok if I make these changes under this pull request? There'll be some documentation changes too which I'll try to cover.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah no problem

Copy link
Contributor

@sushantdhiman sushantdhiman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, just a small documentation change

```

Make sure you turn that into a serializable format before serialization since array
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A note here saying that you will need to call reload after updating an instance with range type or use returning: true option

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.

@sushantdhiman sushantdhiman requested a review from a team May 7, 2018 07:00
BREAKING CHANGE: range values are now returned as an array
    of two objects with each containing a property for the value and
    a property for its bounds inclusion, rather than bounds inclusion
    being defined as an array property. When inserting/querying,
    bounds inclusion must also be defined in the same way.

    This change ensures that bounds inclusivity is not lost when
    serializing or logging data returned in query results.

    To migrate code, follow the example below:

    Before:

    range: [10, 20];
    range.inclusive = [false, true];

    After:

    range: [{ value: 10, inclusive: false }, { value: 20, inclusive: true }];

Closes sequelize#8176, sequelize#8471
@sushantdhiman sushantdhiman requested a review from a team May 7, 2018 07:20
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

3 participants