fix: additional fixes for unique constraint conflict detection#1165
fix: additional fixes for unique constraint conflict detection#1165
Conversation
WalkthroughWalkthroughThis update introduces enhancements to the handling of unique constraints within the database schema, particularly focusing on nested Changes
Assessment against linked issues
The table above indicates that the changes made in the pull request effectively address all the key objectives outlined in the linked issue #1162. By incorporating improvements to the handling of unique constraints and ensuring the 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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- packages/runtime/src/enhancements/policy/handler.ts (3 hunks)
- tests/integration/tests/enhancements/with-policy/deep-nested.test.ts (9 hunks)
Additional comments: 10
tests/integration/tests/enhancements/with-policy/deep-nested.test.ts (9)
- 55-55: The addition of a unique constraint on fields
[m2Id, value]for modelM4is a critical change to support theskipDuplicatesfunctionality. This ensures that the database enforces uniqueness for these fields, which is essential for the correct operation ofskipDuplicatesin nestedcreateManyoperations.- 169-169: When creating test data, it's important to ensure that the values used align with the constraints and policies defined in the models. Here, the creation of
m4instances with specific values seems to be done correctly. However, it's crucial to verify that these values and the corresponding operations (create, connectOrCreate) are consistent with the model's policies and the test's objectives.- 195-199: The use of
connectOrCreatein a nested operation is a powerful feature that allows for flexible handling of related records. It's important to ensure that the conditions (where) and the data for creation (create) are correctly specified to avoid unintended behavior or constraint violations. Additionally, verify that these operations are covered by tests to ensure their correct behavior in various scenarios.Verification successful
The verification process has shown that
connectOrCreateoperations are covered by tests within the codebase, particularly in thetests/integration/tests/enhancements/with-policydirectory and its related test files. This indicates a thorough approach to testing these operations across various scenarios. However, a detailed analysis of each test case would be required to assess the complete coverage of all conditions and creation data scenarios, which is beyond the scope of this verification process.* 332-332: Creating a record in preparation for a test is a common setup step. However, it's crucial to ensure that the data used (e.g., `value: 24`) aligns with the test's objectives and the model's constraints and policies. This setup should be clearly documented or commented to explain its purpose within the test case.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify that connectOrCreate operations are covered by tests. # This script is a placeholder for manual verification. echo "Manual verification needed to ensure connectOrCreate operations are covered by tests."Length of output: 180
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for mentions of `connectOrCreate` within test files to verify coverage. rg "connectOrCreate" --glob '*test.ts'Length of output: 2764
Consider adding comments to clarify the purpose of setup steps, such as creating records, to improve test readability and maintainability.
- 451-452: The explicit setting of an
idfield during a create operation in a test case is unusual unless theidfield's value is significant to the test's logic. Typically, letting the database auto-generate theid(if configured to do so) is preferred to avoid potential conflicts or assumptions about the database state.Unless necessary for the test logic, consider removing explicit
idassignments in create operations to reduce assumptions about the database state.
- 501-503: The
createManyoperation withskipDuplicates: trueis central to the PR's objectives. It's crucial to ensure that the test cases accurately reflect scenarios where duplicates might occur and verify that theskipDuplicatesoption behaves as expected. This includes creating records that would violate unique constraints if not skipped.This test case effectively demonstrates the
skipDuplicatesfunctionality by attempting to create records with and without potential unique constraint violations.
- 514-534: This test case extends the validation of
skipDuplicatesto scenarios involving compound unique constraints that include foreign keys. It's important to ensure comprehensive coverage of various scenarios, including those that might not immediately result in duplicates but are significant for testing the constraint logic.The test case thoughtfully addresses the handling of compound unique constraints involving foreign keys, contributing to the robustness of the feature's validation.
- 597-597: After performing operations that could affect the database state, such as
deleteMany, it's good practice to verify the expected state of the database. This test does so by expecting a specific number of records to exist after the operation, which helps ensure the operation's correctness.The verification of the database state after
deleteManyoperations is a good practice that helps ensure the correctness of the test logic.
- 614-614: Similar to the previous comment, verifying the expected database state after operations that modify it is crucial. This test correctly checks the number of records after a
deleteManyoperation, aligning with best practices for testing database operations.Properly verifying the database state after modification operations is crucial for ensuring the integrity and correctness of the tests.
packages/runtime/src/enhancements/policy/handler.ts (1)
- 540-540: Consider adding logging or metrics around the number of duplicates skipped. This could provide valuable insights into the frequency of duplicate entries and help in monitoring the effectiveness of the
skipDuplicatesfeature.
| private async hasDuplicatedUniqueConstraint( | ||
| model: string, | ||
| createData: any, | ||
| upstreamQuery: any, | ||
| db: Record<string, DbOperations> | ||
| ) { | ||
| // check unique constraint conflicts | ||
| // we can't rely on try/catch/ignore constraint violation error: https://github.com/prisma/prisma/issues/20496 | ||
| // TODO: for simple cases we should be able to translate it to an `upsert` with empty `update` payload | ||
|
|
||
| // for each unique constraint, check if the input item has all fields set, and if so, check if | ||
| // an entity already exists, and ignore accordingly | ||
|
|
||
| const uniqueConstraints = this.utils.getUniqueConstraints(model); | ||
|
|
||
| for (const constraint of Object.values(uniqueConstraints)) { | ||
| if (constraint.fields.every((f) => createData[f] !== undefined)) { | ||
| const uniqueFilter = constraint.fields.reduce((acc, f) => ({ ...acc, [f]: createData[f] }), {}); | ||
| // the unique filter used to check existence | ||
| const uniqueFilter: any = {}; | ||
|
|
||
| // unique constraint fields not covered yet | ||
| const remainingConstraintFields = new Set<string>(constraint.fields); | ||
|
|
||
| // collect constraint fields from the create data | ||
| for (const [k, v] of Object.entries<any>(createData)) { | ||
| if (v === undefined) { | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (remainingConstraintFields.has(k)) { | ||
| uniqueFilter[k] = v; | ||
| remainingConstraintFields.delete(k); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // collect constraint fields from the upstream query | ||
| if (upstreamQuery) { | ||
| for (const [k, v] of Object.entries<any>(upstreamQuery)) { | ||
| if (v === undefined) { | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (remainingConstraintFields.has(k)) { | ||
| uniqueFilter[k] = v; | ||
| remainingConstraintFields.delete(k); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // check if the upstream query contains a relation field which covers | ||
| // a foreign key field constraint | ||
|
|
||
| const fieldInfo = requireField(this.modelMeta, model, k); | ||
| if (!fieldInfo.isDataModel) { | ||
| // only care about relation fields | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // merge the upstream query into the unique filter | ||
| uniqueFilter[k] = v; | ||
|
|
||
| // mark the corresponding foreign key fields as covered | ||
| const fkMapping = fieldInfo.foreignKeyMapping ?? {}; | ||
| for (const fk of Object.values(fkMapping)) { | ||
| remainingConstraintFields.delete(fk); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (remainingConstraintFields.size === 0) { | ||
| // all constraint fields set, check existence | ||
| const existing = await this.utils.checkExistence(db, model, uniqueFilter); | ||
| if (existing) { | ||
| return true; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The implementation of hasDuplicatedUniqueConstraint method is comprehensive, covering both direct fields and relation fields from upstreamQuery. However, consider the following improvements:
- Performance Optimization: When checking for existing entities, ensure that the database queries are optimized, especially when dealing with large datasets. Indexing on unique fields can significantly improve query performance.
- Error Handling: Ensure robust error handling for database queries to gracefully handle any exceptions or timeouts, especially in production environments.
- Logging: Adding detailed logging around the unique constraint checks can aid in debugging and monitoring the system's behavior in real-time.
1 participant
Fixes #1162
Summary by CodeRabbit