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

Improve $count in $filter collection properties #2069

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
May 10, 2021

Conversation

KenitoInc
Copy link
Contributor

@KenitoInc KenitoInc commented Apr 27, 2021

Description

Currently ODL supports
$filter=navProp/$count gt 2
$filter=collectionProp/$count gt 2

It doesn't support $filter and $search within $count.
Spec: http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.01/cs01/part1-protocol/odata-v4.01-cs01-part1-protocol.html#sec_RequestingtheNumberofItemsinaCollect

This PR add support for the following:

$filter=navProp/$count($filter=prop gt 1) gt 2
$filter=navProp/$count($search=prop) eq 'abc'

$filter=collectionProp/$count($filter=prop gt 1) gt 2
$filter=collectionProp/$count($search=prop) eq 'abc'

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

  • Test cases added
  • Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

Additional work necessary

If documentation update is needed, please add "Docs Needed" label to the issue and provide details about the required document change in the issue.

Copy link
Member

@xuzhg xuzhg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:shipit:

@KenitoInc KenitoInc marked this pull request as ready for review April 30, 2021 06:41
@KenitoInc KenitoInc added the Ready for review Use this label if a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Apr 30, 2021
@mikepizzo mikepizzo added this to the 7.9 milestone May 4, 2021
Copy link
Member

@mikepizzo mikepizzo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🕐

/// Read a query option within the $count brackets.
/// </summary>
/// <returns>The query option as a string.</returns>
private string ReadQueryOption()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ReadQueryOption

if this is the same logic as in selectexpand, is there some common place we could put it (maybe a static method in UriParserHelper that takes a lexer and returns the string?)

Copy link
Member

@mikepizzo mikepizzo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:shipit:

@mikepizzo
Copy link
Member

I like the new factoring much better -- thanks. A few minor suggestions, but looks good to me.

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 255 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +232 -23
Percentile : 65.5%

Total files changed: 18

Change summary by file extension:
.csproj : +1 -0
.cs : +228 -23
.txt : +3 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Large Ready for review Use this label if a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants