-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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: LSDV-5425-1: Fix possible performance regression introduced in #4588 #4623
Merged
jombooth
merged 3 commits into
develop
from
fb-LSDV-5425-1/task-and-annotation-permissions-perf-followup
Aug 14, 2023
Merged
fix: LSDV-5425-1: Fix possible performance regression introduced in #4588 #4623
jombooth
merged 3 commits into
develop
from
fb-LSDV-5425-1/task-and-annotation-permissions-perf-followup
Aug 14, 2023
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
✅ Deploy Preview for label-studio-docs-new-theme canceled.
|
✅ Deploy Preview for heartex-docs canceled.
|
jombooth
commented
Aug 11, 2023
Codecov ReportPatch coverage has no change and project coverage change:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #4623 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 75.73% 75.77% +0.03%
===========================================
Files 157 157
Lines 12459 12458 -1
===========================================
+ Hits 9436 9440 +4
+ Misses 3023 3018 -5 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
triklozoid
approved these changes
Aug 14, 2023
jombooth
deleted the
fb-LSDV-5425-1/task-and-annotation-permissions-perf-followup
branch
August 14, 2023 18:18
shayantabatabaee
pushed a commit
to shayantabatabaee/label-studio
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 19, 2023
…umanSignal#4588 (HumanSignal#4623) * fix: LSDV-5425-1: Fix possible performance regression introduced in HumanSignal#4588 * remove unnecessary None setting * make just one query in fast_first
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR fulfills these requirements
[fix|feat|ci|chore|doc]: TICKET-ID: Short description of change made
ex.fix: DEV-XXXX: Removed inconsistent code usage causing intermittent errors
Change has impacts in these area(s)
(check all that apply)
Describe the reason for change
(link to issue, supportive screenshots etc.)
per discussion with @makseq, remove the new use of QuerySet#first() from #4588 in favor of
fast_first
. Also reimplementfast_first
not to cache the entire queryset, but use aLIMIT 1
query.What does this fix?
(if this is a bug fix)
What is the new behavior?
(if this is a breaking or feature change)
What is the current behavior?
(if this is a breaking or feature change)
What libraries were added/updated?
(list all with version changes)
Does this change affect performance?
(if so describe the impacts positive or negative)
Does this change affect security?
(if so describe the impacts positive or negative)
What alternative approaches were there?
(briefly list any if applicable)
What feature flags were used to cover this change?
(briefly list any if applicable)
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
(check only one)
What level of testing was included in the change?
(check all that apply)
Which logical domain(s) does this change affect?
(for bug fixes/features, be as precise as possible. ex. Authentication, Annotation History, Review Stream etc.)