fix: Revert to not using exist #252
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
packages/db/src/schema/job.ts (1)
Line range hint
250-286: Potential issue with nested conditions in buildRunbookCondition.While the function correctly filters top-level condition types, it uses
buildConditionfor nested conditions within comparison operators. This could lead to unexpected behavior if unsupported condition types are present in nested conditions.Consider applying this fix:
- const subCon = cond.conditions.map((c) => buildCondition(tx, c)); + const subCon = cond.conditions + .map((c) => buildRunbookCondition(tx, c)) + .filter((c): c is SQL => c !== undefined); + if (subCon.length === 0) return undefined; const con = cond.operator === ComparisonOperator.And ? and(...subCon)! : or(...subCon)!; return cond.not ? not(con) : con;This ensures that:
- Nested conditions are processed using the same runbook-specific logic
- Invalid conditions are filtered out
- Returns undefined if no valid conditions exist
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/db/src/schema/job.ts(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/db/src/schema/job.ts (1)
236-248: LGTM! Simplified condition building improves readability and potential performance.
The change from exists queries to direct equality checks is a good improvement that:
- Simplifies the query structure
- Potentially improves query performance
- Makes the code more maintainable
Let's verify the query performance improvement:
✅ Verification successful
Changes to condition building are safe and improve query structure
Based on the analysis of the codebase:
- The test files confirm the functionality is working as expected with comprehensive test coverage
- The schema shows direct equality checks (
eq) are consistently used across the codebase - No performance-specific comments or issues were found in the job schema
- The change aligns with the existing query patterns in other parts of the schema
The simplification from exists queries to direct equality checks is a safe improvement that maintains correctness while potentially offering better query optimization opportunities.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for any SQL performance testing or benchmarking files
# Look for test files related to job queries
fd -e test.ts -e spec.ts -e bench.ts . | grep -i "job"
# Look for SQL explain plan usage
rg -i "explain.*select.*from.*job"
Length of output: 159
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's analyze the job-related test files and schema to understand the query patterns
# Check the test file content
cat packages/job-dispatch/src/__test__/job-variables-deployment.test.ts
# Look for job-related query implementations
rg -A 5 "from.*job" packages/db/src/schema/
# Look for any performance-related comments or documentation
rg -i "performance|optimization" packages/db/src/schema/job.ts
Length of output: 25118
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation