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(torii-grpc): building sql query for array idx #2593

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 29, 2024

Conversation

Larkooo
Copy link
Collaborator

@Larkooo Larkooo commented Oct 29, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved error handling for data extraction from SQLite rows, enhancing robustness.
  • Refactor

    • Enhanced SQL query construction logic for clearer and more maintainable code.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 29, 2024

Walkthrough

Ohayo, sensei! The changes in this pull request primarily focus on enhancing the ModelSQLReader implementation within the model.rs file. Key modifications include an updated approach to constructing SQL join clauses, transitioning from a simple mapping to a more indexed method that distinguishes the first table from subsequent ones. Additionally, the error handling in the map_row_to_ty function has been refined to better manage data extraction issues. Overall, these changes improve the clarity and maintainability of the SQL query construction and data mapping logic.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
crates/torii/core/src/model.rs Updated build_sql_query for indexed join clause construction; refined error handling in map_row_to_ty; minor comments and formatting adjustments.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant ModelSQLReader
    participant SQLite

    User->>ModelSQLReader: Request SQL Query
    ModelSQLReader->>SQLite: Build SQL Query
    SQLite-->>ModelSQLReader: Return SQL Query
    ModelSQLReader->>SQLite: Execute Query
    SQLite-->>ModelSQLReader: Return Results
    ModelSQLReader->>User: Return Results
Loading

🪧 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

@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)
crates/torii/core/src/model.rs (1)

419-421: Consider optimizing join performance

The current implementation might benefit from index hints for the join conditions, especially for the full_array_id column.

Consider adding an index on full_array_id if not already present, and potentially using index hints in the join clauses for better query performance.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7addea8 and 10f76e6.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/torii/core/src/model.rs (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
crates/torii/core/src/model.rs (2)

419-421: Ohayo, sensei! The join clause construction looks good!

The new enumeration-based approach correctly differentiates between the first table (using entity_id) and subsequent tables (using full_array_id) in the join sequence. This fix properly handles array indexing in SQL queries.


419-421: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Consider adding error handling for array indices

While the join clause construction is correct, it might be worth adding validation for array indices to prevent potential out-of-bounds scenarios.

Let's verify the array handling in the codebase:

Consider adding bounds checking:

 .enumerate()
 .map(|(i, table)| {
+    if table.table_name.is_empty() {
+        return Err(QueryError::InvalidTableName);
+    }
     if i == 0 {

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.66%. Comparing base (7addea8) to head (10f76e6).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2593      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.65%   69.66%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         401      401              
  Lines       50818    50819       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        35395    35404       +9     
+ Misses      15423    15415       -8     

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

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