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

Handle creatorId #2564

Merged

Conversation

ARYANSHAH1567
Copy link
Contributor

@ARYANSHAH1567 ARYANSHAH1567 commented Oct 5, 2024

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Bugfix

Issue Number:

Fixes #2555

Did you add tests for your changes?

Yes

Snapshots/Videos:

Screenshot 2024-09-21 004048
After handling the creator id correctly that is sent from admin from the admin

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features
    • Enhanced filtering options for membership requests based on the creator's ID, allowing users to filter by specific IDs or lists of IDs.
  • Bug Fixes
    • Improved overall structure and organization of input types for better usability.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 5, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve modifications to the GraphQL schema and input types, specifically enhancing the MembershipRequestsWhereInput input type. New fields have been added to facilitate filtering of membership requests based on the creator's ID, providing additional options for querying. The updates span multiple files, including the schema definition and generated types, ensuring consistency across the codebase.

Changes

Files Change Summary
schema.graphql, src/typeDefs/inputs.ts, src/types/generatedGraphQLTypes.ts Added new fields to MembershipRequestsWhereInput: creatorId: ID, creatorId_in: [ID!], creatorId_not: ID, creatorId_not_in: [ID!].

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Add creatorId to MembershipRequestsWhereInput for filtering (#[2555])

🐰 In the meadow, where bunnies play,
New fields sprout bright, come what may.
With creatorId now in sight,
Membership requests take flight!
Hop along, the queries grow,
Filtering made easy, don’t you know? 🌼


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 87e7e30 and a47dee4.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • schema.graphql (1 hunks)
  • src/types/generatedGraphQLTypes.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • schema.graphql
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/types/generatedGraphQLTypes.ts (1)

1115-1118: Excellent addition of filtering options for membership requests!

The new creatorId fields in the MembershipRequestsWhereInput type provide enhanced querying capabilities:

  • creatorId for exact matches
  • creatorId_in for inclusion in a set of IDs
  • creatorId_not for exclusion of a specific ID
  • creatorId_not_in for exclusion of a set of IDs

These additions will greatly improve the flexibility of membership request filtering, particularly useful for managing SuperAdmin profiles as per the PR objectives.


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>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • 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 testing code 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 gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 5, 2024

Our Pull Request Approval Process

We have these basic policies to make the approval process smoother for our volunteer team.

Testing Your Code

Please make sure your code passes all tests. Our test code coverage system will fail if these conditions occur:

  1. The overall code coverage drops below the target threshold of the repository
  2. Any file in the pull request has code coverage levels below the repository threshold
  3. Merge conflicts

The process helps maintain the overall reliability of the code base and is a prerequisite for getting your PR approved. Assigned reviewers regularly review the PR queue and tend to focus on PRs that are passing.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 5, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.58%. Comparing base (c1dc667) to head (a47dee4).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #2564   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    98.58%   98.58%           
========================================
  Files          356      356           
  Lines        18061    18061           
  Branches      2411     2411           
========================================
  Hits         17806    17806           
  Misses         252      252           
  Partials         3        3           

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

@palisadoes
Copy link
Contributor

Please fix the failing tests

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.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
schema.graphql (1)

1028-1031: Consider the wider impact of these changes.

While the additions to MembershipRequestsWhereInput are beneficial, please consider the following:

  1. Resolver Implementation: Ensure that the backend resolvers for membership requests are updated to handle these new filtering options.
  2. Query Complexity: Be aware that these additional filtering options might increase the complexity of some queries. Consider the performance impact for large datasets and optimize if necessary.
  3. Client-side Impact: Any client-side code that constructs queries using MembershipRequestsWhereInput may need to be updated to take advantage of these new filtering options.
  4. Testing: Add new test cases to cover these filtering scenarios, ensuring proper functionality and performance.

To verify the impact and usage of these new fields, you can run the following script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for usage and implementation of new MembershipRequestsWhereInput fields

# Test: Search for resolver implementations handling the new fields
echo "Checking resolver implementations:"
rg --type typescript "creatorId|creatorId_in|creatorId_not|creatorId_not_in" -g "*resolver.ts"

# Test: Search for client-side query constructions using MembershipRequestsWhereInput
echo "Checking client-side query constructions:"
rg --type typescript "MembershipRequestsWhereInput.*creatorId" -g "*.ts"

# Test: Search for test files that might need updating
echo "Checking test files:"
rg --type typescript "MembershipRequestsWhereInput" -g "*test.ts"
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between c03e2fb and 87e7e30.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • schema.graphql (1 hunks)
  • src/typeDefs/inputs.ts (1 hunks)
  • src/types/generatedGraphQLTypes.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/typeDefs/inputs.ts (1)

287-291: LGTM! Changes align with PR objectives.

The additions to MembershipRequestsWhereInput are well-implemented and consistent with the existing structure. These new fields (creatorId, creatorId_not, creatorId_in, creatorId_not_in) enable more granular filtering of membership requests based on the creator's ID, which directly addresses the PR objective of handling creatorId for editing SuperAdmin profiles.

The changes maintain the file's consistency by:

  1. Using the correct type (ID) for the new fields.
  2. Following the existing naming convention.
  3. Preserving alphabetical order, as per the file's comment.
schema.graphql (2)

1028-1031: LGTM! Enhanced filtering capabilities for membership requests.

The additions to the MembershipRequestsWhereInput input type provide more granular control over filtering membership requests based on the creator's ID. This change aligns well with the PR objectives of handling the creatorId for editing SuperAdmin profiles.

These new fields allow for the following operations:

  1. Filter by a specific creator (creatorId: ID)
  2. Filter by multiple creators (creatorId_in: [ID!])
  3. Exclude a specific creator (creatorId_not: ID)
  4. Exclude multiple creators (creatorId_not_in: [ID!])

This enhancement will improve the flexibility of queries related to membership requests, particularly in the context of SuperAdmin profile management.


1028-1031: Summary: Approved changes with considerations for implementation and testing.

The additions to MembershipRequestsWhereInput are well-designed and align with the PR objectives. They provide enhanced filtering capabilities for membership requests, which will be particularly useful for handling creatorId in the context of editing SuperAdmin profiles.

Key points:

  1. The changes are approved and beneficial.
  2. Consider updating backend resolvers, client-side query construction, and test cases.
  3. Be aware of potential performance implications for complex queries on large datasets.

Overall, these changes improve the flexibility of the API without introducing breaking changes. Ensure thorough testing and updates to related components for a smooth integration.

src/types/generatedGraphQLTypes.ts (1)

1114-1117: LGTM! Enhanced filtering capabilities for membership requests.

The additions to the MembershipRequestsWhereInput type provide more granular filtering options for membership requests based on the creator's ID. This enhancement allows for more flexible and precise querying, which can be particularly useful in scenarios where you need to filter requests by specific creators or groups of creators.

The new fields follow a consistent naming pattern and include options for equality, inclusion, and negation:

  • creatorId: Exact match
  • creatorId_in: Match any of the provided IDs
  • creatorId_not: Exclude a specific ID
  • creatorId_not_in: Exclude any of the provided IDs

These additions align well with GraphQL best practices for input types and will improve the API's usability.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Oct 12, 2024
@ARYANSHAH1567
Copy link
Contributor Author

ARYANSHAH1567 commented Oct 13, 2024

Please fix the failing tests

@palisadoes fixed the tests. Can you please review it

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.

2 participants