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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Expand fully qualified type #2160

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Sep 18, 2021
Merged

Expand fully qualified type #2160

merged 13 commits into from
Sep 18, 2021

Conversation

KenitoInc
Copy link
Contributor

@KenitoInc KenitoInc commented Aug 16, 2021 •
edited by gathogojr
Loading

Issues

This pull request fixes #1870 .

Description

Briefly describe the changes of this pull request.

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.

@KenitoInc KenitoInc marked this pull request as ready for review September 2, 2021 09:03
@KenitoInc KenitoInc added the Ready for review Use this label if a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Sep 2, 2021
gathogojr
gathogojr approved these changes Sep 13, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@gathogojr gathogojr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

mikepizzo
mikepizzo reviewed Sep 13, 2021
View reviewed changes
src/Microsoft.OData.Core/UriParser/Binders/SelectExpandBinder.cs
if (firstNonTypeToken.NextToken != null && firstNonTypeToken.NextToken.IsNamespaceOrContainerQualified())
{
hasDerivedTypeSegment = true;
derivedType = UriEdmHelpers.FindTypeFromModel(this.Model, firstNonTypeToken.NextToken.Identifier, this.configuration.Resolver);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

derivedType = UriEdmHelpers.FindTypeFromModel

do you need any special handling for FindTypeFromModel not finding the type? In that case, I believe derivedType would return null, and it looks like CheckRelatedTo may throw a null ref exception as IsRelatedTo will return false, but the exception that we try to generate on line 57 of EdmUriHelpers will try to call FullTypeName() on the null value.

Minimally, we should fix EdmUriHelpers.CheckRelatedTo to handle the null childType and add tests for adding a cast segment with a type that is not found.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

When FindTypeFromModel doesn't find the type it returns a null. I have added code to throw an exception when the derivedType is null.

Regarding EdmUriHelpers.CheckRelatedTo, I have handled the null childType similar to how a null parentType is handled.

mikepizzo
mikepizzo reviewed Sep 13, 2021
View reviewed changes
...ionalTests/Microsoft.OData.Core.Tests/ScenarioTests/UriParser/SelectExpandFunctionalTests.cs
@@ -1667,6 +1667,96 @@ public void ExpandWithNavigationPropCountWithSearchOptionWorks()
Assert.NotNull(expandedCountSelectItem.SearchOption);
}

// $expand=navProp/fully.qualified.type/$count
Copy link
Member

@mikepizzo mikepizzo Sep 13, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should also have tests for /$expand=navProp/fully.qualified.type/$ref #Closed

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

mikepizzo
mikepizzo reviewed Sep 13, 2021
View reviewed changes
...ionalTests/Microsoft.OData.Core.Tests/ScenarioTests/UriParser/SelectExpandFunctionalTests.cs
@@ -1667,6 +1667,96 @@ public void ExpandWithNavigationPropCountWithSearchOptionWorks()
Assert.NotNull(expandedCountSelectItem.SearchOption);
}

// $expand=navProp/fully.qualified.type/$count
Copy link
Member

@mikepizzo mikepizzo Sep 13, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we add tests for fully.qualified.type being an alias? #Closed

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mikepizzo I am not sure what you mean. Kindly clarify.
cc @gathogojr

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

From the spec, parameter aliases are only used for $filter or $orderby https://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.01/odata-v4.01-part2-url-conventions.html#sec_ParameterAliases

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry; i meant using a (namespace alias)[http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata-csdl-xml/v4.01/odata-csdl-xml-v4.01.html#sec_Alias] to qualify the type name, rather than the full namespace name.

For example:

...

$expand=navProp/alias.type

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mikepizzo I have added the tests

mikepizzo
mikepizzo reviewed Sep 13, 2021
View reviewed changes
...ionalTests/Microsoft.OData.Core.Tests/ScenarioTests/UriParser/SelectExpandFunctionalTests.cs
@@ -1667,6 +1667,96 @@ public void ExpandWithNavigationPropCountWithSearchOptionWorks()
Assert.NotNull(expandedCountSelectItem.SearchOption);
}

// $expand=navProp/fully.qualified.type/$count
Copy link
Member

@mikepizzo mikepizzo Sep 13, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please add a (negative) test case for fully.qualified.undefinedType and verify meaningful exception (i.e., saying that the type fully.qualified.undefinedType was not found). #Closed

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

mikepizzo
mikepizzo requested changes Sep 13, 2021
View reviewed changes
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.

🕐

habbes
habbes reviewed Sep 17, 2021
View reviewed changes
src/Microsoft.OData.Core/Microsoft.OData.Core.txt Outdated
@@ -846,7 +846,7 @@ PathParser_TypeCastOnlyAllowedInDerivedTypeConstraint=Type cast segment '{0}' on

ODataResourceSet_MustNotContainBothNextPageLinkAndDeltaLink=A resource set may contain a next page link, a delta link or neither, but must not contain both.

ODataExpandPath_OnlyLastSegmentMustBeNavigationProperty=The last segment, and only the last segment, must be a navigation property in $expand.
ODataExpandPath_OnlyLastSegmentMustBeNavigationPropertyOrTypeSegment=The last segment, and only the last segment, must be a navigation property or type segment in $expand.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does this imply that it's not allowed to have type segments before the last segment?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch.
We can have type segments before the last segments.
The error string should be
ODataExpandPath_LastSegmentMustBeNavigationPropertyOrTypeSegment = The last segment must be a navigation property or type segment in $expand.

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

This PR has 165 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Medium
Size       : +140 -25
Percentile : 53%

Total files changed: 10

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +138 -24
.txt : +2 -1

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.

mikepizzo
mikepizzo approved these changes Sep 17, 2021
View reviewed changes
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:

@KenitoInc KenitoInc merged commit 6b8aea5 into OData:master Sep 18, 2021
@KenitoInc KenitoInc mentioned this pull request Jan 28, 2022
Merged
2 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@xuzhg xuzhg xuzhg left review comments

@habbes habbes habbes approved these changes

@mikepizzo mikepizzo mikepizzo approved these changes

@gathogojr gathogojr gathogojr approved these changes

@marabooy marabooy Awaiting requested review from marabooy

@Sreejithpin Sreejithpin Awaiting requested review from Sreejithpin

@ElizabethOkerio ElizabethOkerio Awaiting requested review from ElizabethOkerio

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Medium Ready for review Use this label if a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ExpandBinder throws on $expand ending in fully qualified type
5 participants
@KenitoInc @habbes @mikepizzo @xuzhg @gathogojr