Batch asset invalidations #11937
Batch asset invalidations #11937
Conversation
…tion to the backend is in flight
weird, we should already be doing this, right? |
would you happen to know how we managed to avoid that previously? |
|
anyway @MrFlashAccount ready for re-review i guess. lmk if there are specific things i should split out |
app/gui/src/dashboard/components/dashboard/column/LabelsColumn.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| return result | ||
| } | ||
| }, [listUserGroupsQuery.data, listUsersQuery.data]) | ||
| const listUserGroupsQuery = useBackendQuery(backend, 'listUserGroups', EMPTY_ARRAY) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW, using queries like this should be discouraged as it throws away the state of the query - loading, fetching, error, etc. instead, we should fetch on components level and if we want to hide some logic behind an abstraction - introduce a hook/function that accepts data as parameters
| type RestoreAssetsMutation = Mutation<null, Error, readonly AssetId[]> | ||
|
|
||
| /** Return matching in-flight "restore assets" mutations. */ | ||
| export function useRestoreAssetsMutationState<Result>( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it's better to call it useIsRestoring... ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it returns the mutation object, not a boolean, so i'm not sure whether that name makes sense
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** Clear the trash folder. */ | ||
| export function useClearTrashMutation(backend: Backend) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we can unify this hook with removing a group of items, a single item, by passing the ids into mutation params?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how's that different to the current code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think this has the same "wrap mutation into a mutation" issue btw - but i'm not sure how to fix it because we potentially need to do a fetch for this one
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** Duplicate a specific version of a project. */ | ||
| export function useDuplicateProjectMutation(backend: Backend) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please ask Pawel if we need to specify a name for duplicating assest (now we don't need to pass a name when we create them), but this makes sense for the LocalBackend.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** Call "add label" mutations for a list of assets. */ | ||
| export function addAssetsLabelsMutationOptions(backend: Backend) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This makes me wondering, why somewhere we use useMutation, in other places we use mutationOptions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ideally everything should be mutationOptions imo, but some of them need to use hooks so that is not possible as is
app/gui/src/dashboard/layouts/Settings/ActivityLogSettingsSection.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
app/gui/src/dashboard/components/dashboard/column/LabelsColumn.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
somebody1234
force-pushed
the
wip/sb/batch-invalidations
branch
from
b0a3b11 to
a1d8517
Compare
Pull Request Description
Codebase changes:
AssetEvents andAssetListEvents. Remaining events have been moved to TanStack Query mutations in this PR, as it is neccessary for batch invalidation functionality.keyanddirectoryKeyfromAssetTreeNode, andkeys in general in favor ofids. Not strictly necessary, but it was causing logic issues and is (IMO) a nice simplification to be able to do.Important Notes
None
Testing instructions
Checklist
Please ensure that the following checklist has been satisfied before submitting the PR:
The documentation has been updated, if necessary.Scala,
Java,
TypeScript,
and
Rust
style guides. In case you are using a language not listed above, follow the Rust style guide.
Unit tests have been written where possible.If meaningful changes were made to logic or tests affecting Enso Cloud integration in the libraries,or the Snowflake database integration, a run of the Extra Tests has been scheduled.
If applicable, it is suggested to paste a link to a successful run of the Extra Tests.