chore: merge updateActionData with an evaluation #38793
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces enhancements to the evaluation saga and related components, focusing on improving the handling of action data during the evaluation process. The changes primarily involve adding debouncing logic, consolidating action updates, and refining the evaluation tree management across multiple files in the client-side application. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
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
|
github-actions
bot
added
the
skip-changelog
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts (2)
32-45: Consider using Set for unique property paths.The current implementation might process duplicate property paths if they exist in the action updates.
- const updatedProperties: string[][] = []; + const uniqueProperties = new Set<string[]>(); actionsToUpdate.forEach(({ dataPath, entityName }) => { - updatedProperties.push([entityName, dataPath]); + uniqueProperties.add([entityName, dataPath]); }); evalTreeWithChanges({ data: { - updatedValuePaths: updatedProperties, + updatedValuePaths: Array.from(uniqueProperties), metaUpdates: [], }, method: EVAL_WORKER_SYNC_ACTION.EVAL_TREE_WITH_CHANGES, webworkerTelemetry: {}, });
47-52: Add early return type annotation.The early return statement should specify its return type for better type safety.
export function updateActionsToEvalTree( evalTree: DataTree, actionsToUpdate?: UpdateActionProps[], - ) { + ): void { if (!actionsToUpdate) return;app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.ts (1)
853-868: Consider extracting the evaluation logic into a separate function.The evaluation logic inside the if block is complex and could benefit from being extracted into a separate function for better maintainability.
- if (hasDebouncedHandleUpdate && hasBufferedAction) { - const affectedJSObjects = getAffectedJSObjectIdsFromAction(action); - - yield call(evalAndLintingHandler, true, action, { - actionDataPayloadConsolidated, - shouldReplay: get(action, "payload.shouldReplay"), - forceEvaluation: shouldForceEval(action), - requiresLogging: shouldLog(action), - affectedJSObjects, - }); - - continue; - } + if (hasDebouncedHandleUpdate && hasBufferedAction) { + yield call(handleCombinedEvaluation, action, actionDataPayloadConsolidated); + continue; + } // New function +function* handleCombinedEvaluation(action, actionDataPayloadConsolidated) { + const affectedJSObjects = getAffectedJSObjectIdsFromAction(action); + + yield call(evalAndLintingHandler, true, action, { + actionDataPayloadConsolidated, + shouldReplay: get(action, "payload.shouldReplay"), + forceEvaluation: shouldForceEval(action), + requiresLogging: shouldLog(action), + affectedJSObjects, + }); +}
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.test.ts(5 hunks)app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.ts(7 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/evalTree.ts(4 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts(2 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/types.ts(2 hunks)app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/dataTreeEvaluator.test.ts(1 hunks)app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/index.ts(5 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)
- GitHub Check: client-unit-tests / client-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: client-lint / client-lint
- GitHub Check: client-check-cyclic-deps / check-cyclic-dependencies
- GitHub Check: client-build / client-build
- GitHub Check: client-prettier / prettier-check
🔇 Additional comments (13)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts (1)
30-31: LGTM! Consolidating action updates with evaluation.The integration of
updateActionsToEvalTreewith the evaluation tree aligns with the PR's performance optimization goals.app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/types.ts (1)
55-55: LGTM! Type definition for consolidated action data.The addition of
actionDataPayloadConsolidatedtoEvalTreeRequestDataproperly types the consolidated action data feature.app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/evalTree.ts (2)
197-200: LGTM! Efficient merging of debounced updates.The implementation correctly merges debounced updateActionData with regular evaluation, which should contribute to the reported 10-20% LCP improvement.
224-224: Verify setupUpdateTree signature update.The addition of
actionDataPayloadConsolidatedparameter tosetupUpdateTreeneeds verification.✅ Verification successful
setupUpdateTree signature update is correctly implemented
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for setupUpdateTree implementation to verify parameter handling ast-grep --pattern 'setupUpdateTree($$$) { $$$ }'Length of output: 53
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for setupUpdateTree with context rg -t ts -t js "setupUpdateTree" -B 2 -A 5Length of output: 36947
app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.test.ts (3)
398-457: LGTM! Comprehensive test for consolidated updates.The test properly verifies that action data is consolidated when both updateActionData and evaluation actions are triggered.
458-499: LGTM! Verification of standalone updates.The test correctly verifies that evalTreeWithChanges is called for updateActionData-only scenarios.
500-525: LGTM! Test coverage for evaluation-only path.The test properly verifies the evaluation-only scenario, completing the coverage of all possible paths.
app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.ts (3)
547-550: LGTM! Interface update aligns with the consolidated action data pattern.The BUFFERED_ACTION interface has been correctly updated to include actionDataPayloadConsolidated.
252-252: LGTM! Function signatures updated consistently.The evaluateTreeSaga and evalAndLintingHandler functions have been updated to handle consolidated action data payload.
Also applies to: 679-687
Line range hint
815-868: Verify error handling in evaluationLoopWithDebounce.The new evaluationLoopWithDebounce function handles both debounced action updates and regular evaluations. However, error handling for failed evaluations should be verified.
Run this script to check error handling patterns:
✅ Verification successful
Error handling in evaluationLoopWithDebounce is appropriately implemented
The function delegates error handling to specialized handlers:
- evalWorker.request handles worker communication errors
- evalAndLintingHandler processes evaluation errors and displays them
- Saga middleware catches any uncaught errors
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for error handling patterns in evaluation loops rg -A 5 'try|catch|error' app/client/src/sagas/Length of output: 82343
app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/dataTreeEvaluator.test.ts (1)
382-441: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage for the new functionality.The test suite thoroughly covers the setupTree behavior with actionDataPayloadConsolidated, including both positive and negative test cases.
app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/index.ts (2)
158-158: LGTM! Type import and method signature update.The UpdateActionProps type import and setupUpdateTree method signature changes are consistent with the consolidated action data pattern.
Also applies to: 641-641
729-734: LGTM! Efficient handling of paths to skip evaluation.The implementation correctly handles paths that should be skipped from evaluation when processing consolidated action data.
Also applies to: 750-761
vsvamsi1
added
ok-to-test
|
🔴🔴🔴 Cyclic Dependency Check: This PR has increased the number of cyclic dependencies by 1, when compared with the release branch. Refer this document to identify the cyclic dependencies introduced by this PR. |
vsvamsi1
added
ok-to-test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts (1)
32-45: Consider using array map instead of forEach.The current implementation uses forEach to build an array. Using map would be more idiomatic and avoid the need for array mutation.
- const updatedProperties: string[][] = []; - - actionsToUpdate.forEach(({ dataPath, entityName }) => { - updatedProperties.push([entityName, dataPath]); - }); + const updatedProperties = actionsToUpdate.map(({ dataPath, entityName }) => + [entityName, dataPath] + );app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/evalTree.ts (1)
195-201: Add JSDoc comment to explain the merging behavior.The comment explains the purpose but should be formalized as a JSDoc comment for better documentation.
- // during update cycles update actions to the dataTree directly - // this is useful in cases where we have debounced updateActionData and a regular evaluation - // triggered together, in those cases we merge them both into a regular evaluation + /** + * Updates actions to the dataTree directly during update cycles. + * This is useful when debounced updateActionData and regular evaluation + * are triggered together, merging them into a single regular evaluation. + */app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.ts (1)
544-548: Consider using a more descriptive interface name.The interface name BUFFERED_ACTION could be more descriptive, e.g., BufferedEvaluationAction.
app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/index.ts (1)
750-761: Consider adding validation for path construction.While the path construction from
entityNameanddataPathis straightforward, it would be good to add validation to ensure both values are defined before joining.const pathsToSkipFromEval = actionDataPayloadConsolidated ?.map(({ dataPath, entityName }) => { + if (!entityName || !dataPath) { + return null; + } return [entityName, dataPath]; }) + .filter((path): path is string[] => path !== null) .map((path: string[]) => path.join(".")) || [];app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/dataTreeEvaluator.test.ts (1)
412-439: Consider adding edge cases to the test.While the test correctly verifies the happy path, consider adding test cases for empty actionsToUpdate array and null/undefined values.
describe("when unevalTree is the same", () => { + it("should handle empty actionsToUpdate array", () => { + const spy = jest.spyOn(dataTreeEvaluator, "setupTree"); + + dataTreeEvaluator.setupUpdateTree( + unEvalTree as unknown as DataTree, + configTree as unknown as ConfigTree, + undefined, + undefined, + [], + ); + + expect(spy).not.toHaveBeenCalled(); + }); + + it("should handle undefined actionsToUpdate", () => { + const spy = jest.spyOn(dataTreeEvaluator, "setupTree"); + + dataTreeEvaluator.setupUpdateTree( + unEvalTree as unknown as DataTree, + configTree as unknown as ConfigTree, + undefined, + undefined, + undefined, + ); + + expect(spy).not.toHaveBeenCalled(); + });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.test.ts(5 hunks)app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.ts(8 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/evalTree.ts(4 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts(2 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/types.ts(2 hunks)app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/dataTreeEvaluator.test.ts(1 hunks)app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/index.ts(5 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/types.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (8)
- GitHub Check: perform-test / client-build / client-build
- GitHub Check: perform-test / rts-build / build
- GitHub Check: perform-test / server-build / server-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: client-unit-tests / client-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: client-prettier / prettier-check
- GitHub Check: client-lint / client-lint
- GitHub Check: client-check-cyclic-deps / check-cyclic-dependencies
- GitHub Check: client-build / client-build
🔇 Additional comments (10)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts (2)
30-31: LGTM!The function call is correctly placed and the parameters are properly passed.
47-52: LGTM!The function signature is well-defined with proper typing, and the early return pattern is correctly implemented.
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/evalTree.ts (1)
224-224: LGTM!The parameter is correctly passed to setupUpdateTree.
app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.test.ts (1)
Line range hint
382-441: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage.The test suite thoroughly covers the new functionality:
- Tests the no-op case when actionsToUpdate is present
- Verifies correct parameter passing to setupTree
- Includes proper setup and cleanup
app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/index.ts (4)
158-158: LGTM: Type import for consolidated action data.The import of
UpdateActionPropstype is correctly added to support the new functionality.
641-641: LGTM: Method signature enhancement.The optional parameter
actionDataPayloadConsolidatedis appropriately added to support the PR's objective of mergingupdateActionDatawith evaluation.
682-682: LGTM: Early return condition update.The condition is correctly updated to consider consolidated action data, preventing unnecessary processing when there are no differences and no action data updates.
729-734: LGTM: Initialization of pathsChangedSet.The code correctly initializes
pathsChangedSetwith paths from consolidated action data, ensuring proper tracking of changes.app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/dataTreeEvaluator.test.ts (2)
382-441: Well-structured test suite for actionsToUpdate functionality!The test suite effectively validates the behavior of setupTree when handling actionsToUpdate.
399-411: Clean and focused test implementation!The test effectively verifies that setupTree is not called when only actionsToUpdate is present.
| // when there are both debounced action updates evaluation and a regular evaluation | ||
| // we will convert that to a regular evaluation this should help in performance by | ||
| // not performing a debounced action updates evaluation | ||
| if (hasDebouncedHandleUpdate && hasBufferedAction) { | ||
| const affectedJSObjects = getAffectedJSObjectIdsFromAction(action); | ||
|
|
||
| yield call(evalAndLintingHandler, true, action, { | ||
| actionDataPayloadConsolidated, | ||
| shouldReplay: get(action, "payload.shouldReplay"), | ||
| forceEvaluation: shouldForceEval(action), | ||
| requiresLogging: shouldLog(action), | ||
| affectedJSObjects, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| continue; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for edge cases.
The debounced action handling logic should include error handling for cases where the action payload might be malformed.
if (hasDebouncedHandleUpdate && hasBufferedAction) {
+ try {
const affectedJSObjects = getAffectedJSObjectIdsFromAction(action);
yield call(evalAndLintingHandler, true, action, {
actionDataPayloadConsolidated,
shouldReplay: get(action, "payload.shouldReplay"),
forceEvaluation: shouldForceEval(action),
requiresLogging: shouldLog(action),
affectedJSObjects,
});
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error("Failed to handle debounced action:", error);
+ // Consider adding error reporting here
+ }
continue;
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| // when there are both debounced action updates evaluation and a regular evaluation | |
| // we will convert that to a regular evaluation this should help in performance by | |
| // not performing a debounced action updates evaluation | |
| if (hasDebouncedHandleUpdate && hasBufferedAction) { | |
| const affectedJSObjects = getAffectedJSObjectIdsFromAction(action); | |
| yield call(evalAndLintingHandler, true, action, { | |
| actionDataPayloadConsolidated, | |
| shouldReplay: get(action, "payload.shouldReplay"), | |
| forceEvaluation: shouldForceEval(action), | |
| requiresLogging: shouldLog(action), | |
| affectedJSObjects, | |
| }); | |
| continue; | |
| } | |
| // when there are both debounced action updates evaluation and a regular evaluation | |
| // we will convert that to a regular evaluation this should help in performance by | |
| // not performing a debounced action updates evaluation | |
| if (hasDebouncedHandleUpdate && hasBufferedAction) { | |
| try { | |
| const affectedJSObjects = getAffectedJSObjectIdsFromAction(action); | |
| yield call(evalAndLintingHandler, true, action, { | |
| actionDataPayloadConsolidated, | |
| shouldReplay: get(action, "payload.shouldReplay"), | |
| forceEvaluation: shouldForceEval(action), | |
| requiresLogging: shouldLog(action), | |
| affectedJSObjects, | |
| }); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error("Failed to handle debounced action:", error); | |
| // Consider adding error reporting here | |
| } | |
| continue; | |
| } |
|
🔴🔴🔴 Cyclic Dependency Check: This PR has increased the number of cyclic dependencies by 1, when compared with the release branch. Refer this document to identify the cyclic dependencies introduced by this PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionsToEvalTree.ts (2)
6-9: Consider making actionsToUpdate required.Since the function immediately returns if actionsToUpdate is undefined, consider making it a required parameter to make the function's contract clearer.
- actionsToUpdate?: UpdateActionProps[], + actionsToUpdate: UpdateActionProps[],
21-28: Potential performance optimization for multiple updates.The current implementation performs three separate operations (evalTree, context, DataStore) for each action. Consider batching these updates for better performance, especially given the PR's performance objectives.
Consider collecting all updates first and then applying them in batches:
const updates = actionsToUpdate.map(({ entityName, dataPath, data }) => ({ path: `${entityName}.[${dataPath}]`, data })); // Batch update evalTree updates.forEach(({ path, data }) => set(evalTree, path, data)); // Batch update context updates.forEach(({ path, data }) => set(self, path, data)); // Batch update DataStore updates.forEach(({ path, data }) => DataStore.setActionData(path, data));app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts (1)
Line range hint
31-34: Consider using map instead of forEach for updatedProperties.The current implementation uses forEach to build updatedProperties array. Using map would be more functional and clearer.
- const updatedProperties: string[][] = []; - actionsToUpdate.forEach(({ dataPath, entityName }) => { - updatedProperties.push([entityName, dataPath]); - }); + const updatedProperties = actionsToUpdate.map(({ dataPath, entityName }) => + [entityName, dataPath] + );
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/evalTree.ts(4 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts(2 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionsToEvalTree.ts(1 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/types.ts(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/evalTree.ts
- app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/types.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (8)
- GitHub Check: perform-test / rts-build / build
- GitHub Check: perform-test / client-build / client-build
- GitHub Check: perform-test / server-build / server-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: client-unit-tests / client-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: client-check-cyclic-deps / check-cyclic-dependencies
- GitHub Check: client-lint / client-lint
- GitHub Check: client-build / client-build
- GitHub Check: client-prettier / prettier-check
🔇 Additional comments (2)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionsToEvalTree.ts (1)
1-5: LGTM! Clean imports with clear type definitions.The imports are well-organized and properly typed.
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts (1)
28-28: LGTM! Clean separation of concerns.The extraction of update logic to
updateActionsToEvalTreeimproves code organization and maintainability.
|
🔴🔴🔴 Cyclic Dependency Check: This PR has increased the number of cyclic dependencies by 2, when compared with the release branch. Refer this document to identify the cyclic dependencies introduced by this PR. |
1 similar comment
|
🔴🔴🔴 Cyclic Dependency Check: This PR has increased the number of cyclic dependencies by 2, when compared with the release branch. Refer this document to identify the cyclic dependencies introduced by this PR. |
|
🔴🔴🔴 Cyclic Dependency Check: This PR has increased the number of cyclic dependencies by 1, when compared with the release branch. Refer this document to identify the cyclic dependencies introduced by this PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.ts (1)
Line range hint
547-553: Consider using a more specific type for actionDataPayloadConsolidated.The interface defines
actionDataPayloadConsolidatedas an array but it's used as a single object in the implementation. This mismatch could lead to type-related bugs.Apply this diff to fix the type:
export interface BUFFERED_ACTION { hasDebouncedHandleUpdate: boolean; hasBufferedAction: boolean; - actionDataPayloadConsolidated: actionDataPayload[]; + actionDataPayloadConsolidated: actionDataPayload; }
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.ts (3)
853-868: Optimize the debouncing logic.The current implementation has a good optimization where it combines debounced action updates with regular evaluation. However, the comment could be more descriptive about the performance implications.
Add a more detailed comment explaining the performance benefits:
- // when there are both debounced action updates evaluation and a regular evaluation - // we will convert that to a regular evaluation this should help in performance by - // not performing a debounced action updates evaluation + // Performance Optimization: When both debounced action updates and regular evaluation + // are present, we consolidate them into a single evaluation cycle. This prevents + // redundant evaluations and reduces the overall computation overhead by: + // 1. Avoiding separate debounced evaluation + // 2. Combining all updates into a single tree traversal + // 3. Minimizing DOM updates
679-687: Update function documentation.The
evalAndLintingHandlerfunction's parameters have changed, but the JSDoc is missing.Add JSDoc to document the function parameters:
/** * Handles evaluation and linting of the data tree * @param isBlockingCall - Whether to block until evaluation completes * @param action - The Redux action that triggered the evaluation * @param options - Configuration options * @param options.shouldReplay - Whether to replay the evaluation * @param options.forceEvaluation - Whether to force a full evaluation * @param options.requiresLogging - Whether to enable logging * @param options.affectedJSObjects - JS objects affected by the evaluation * @param options.actionDataPayloadConsolidated - Consolidated action data updates */
815-818: Add return type annotation.The
evaluationLoopWithDebouncefunction is missing its return type annotation.Add the return type:
export function* evaluationLoopWithDebounce( // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any - evtActionChannel: ActionPattern<Action<any>>, + evtActionChannel: ActionPattern<Action<any>>, +): Generator<unknown, void, unknown> {
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.ts(7 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)
- GitHub Check: client-unit-tests / client-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: client-prettier / prettier-check
- GitHub Check: client-lint / client-lint
- GitHub Check: client-build / client-build
- GitHub Check: client-check-cyclic-deps / check-cyclic-dependencies
🔇 Additional comments (1)
app/client/src/sagas/EvaluationsSaga.ts (1)
252-252: LGTM: Parameter addition is consistent.The
actionDataPayloadConsolidatedparameter has been consistently added to both the function signature and the request data object.Also applies to: 295-295
|
🔴🔴🔴 Cyclic Dependency Check: This PR has increased the number of cyclic dependencies by 1, when compared with the release branch. Refer this document to identify the cyclic dependencies introduced by this PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts (1)
Add error handling to protect against invalid inputs and failed operations
export function updateActionsToEvalTree( evalTree: DataTree, actionsToUpdate?: UpdateActionProps[], ) { if (!actionsToUpdate) return; for (const actionToUpdate of actionsToUpdate) { try { const { dataPath, dataPathRef, entityName } = actionToUpdate; if (!entityName || !dataPath) continue; let { data } = actionToUpdate; if (dataPathRef) { data = DataStore.getActionData(dataPathRef); if (data === undefined) { console.warn(`Invalid dataPathRef: ${dataPathRef}`); continue; } DataStore.deleteActionData(dataPathRef); } set(evalTree, `${entityName}.[${dataPath}]`, data); set(self, `${entityName}.[${dataPath}]`, data); } catch (error) { console.error("Failed to update action in eval tree:", error); } } }🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
42-61: Verify error handling in updateActionsToEvalTree.While the function implementation is clean, consider adding error handling for:
- Invalid data path references
- Failed data store operations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for error handling patterns in action updates rg -A 3 "try|catch|throw|error" app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/Length of output: 21995
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for DataStore implementation and error handling ast-grep --pattern 'class DataStore { $$$ getActionData($_) { $$$ } $$$ }' rg -A 5 "class DataStore" app/client/src/workers/Length of output: 639
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get complete DataStore implementation cat app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/dataStore/index.ts # Find the implementation/import of the 'set' utility rg -p "import.*set.*from" app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/Length of output: 3657
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/index.ts (1)
729-734: Consider using Set constructor with map for better readability.The pathsChangedSet initialization can be simplified.
-const pathsChangedSet = new Set<string[]>( - actionDataPayloadConsolidated?.map(({ dataPath, entityName }) => [ - entityName, - dataPath, - ]) || [], -); +const pathsChangedSet = new Set( + actionDataPayloadConsolidated?.map(({ dataPath, entityName }) => [entityName, dataPath]) ?? [] +);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/fns/utils/TriggerEmitter.ts(1 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/types.ts(1 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts(2 hunks)app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/types.ts(2 hunks)app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/index.ts(5 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/fns/utils/TriggerEmitter.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/types.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (8)
- GitHub Check: perform-test / rts-build / build
- GitHub Check: perform-test / client-build / client-build
- GitHub Check: perform-test / server-build / server-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: client-lint / client-lint
- GitHub Check: client-unit-tests / client-unit-tests
- GitHub Check: client-prettier / prettier-check
- GitHub Check: client-check-cyclic-deps / check-cyclic-dependencies
- GitHub Check: client-build / client-build
🔇 Additional comments (4)
app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/types.ts (1)
1-6: Well-structured interface definition!The
UpdateActionPropsinterface is clean, with clear property names and appropriate types.app/client/src/workers/Evaluation/handlers/updateActionData.ts (1)
25-40: Clean refactoring of handleActionsDataUpdate!The function has been simplified by extracting the update logic into
updateActionsToEvalTreewhile maintaining the evaluation logic.app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/index.ts (2)
641-641: Good integration of action data consolidation!The setupUpdateTree signature change and early return condition modification properly handle the consolidated action data updates.
Also applies to: 682-682
750-761: Verify the impact of skipping paths from evaluation.The introduction of pathsToSkipFromEval could affect the evaluation order. Ensure that skipping these paths doesn't break any dependencies.
✅ Verification successful
Skipping paths from evaluation is safely implemented
The paths are only skipped during evaluation phase, not during dependency resolution, ensuring the dependency graph remains intact and consistent.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for dependency-related code to verify evaluation order rg -A 5 "calculateSubTreeSortOrder|sortDependencies|dependencyMap" app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/Length of output: 15934
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for setupTree implementation and related code ast-grep --pattern 'setupTree($$$) { $$$ }' # Also search for any references to pathsToSkipFromEval rg -A 5 "pathsToSkipFromEval" app/client/src/workers/common/DataTreeEvaluator/Length of output: 5678
Whenever we have debounced updateActionData and an evalTree we will merge that to a single evaluation. Seeing a 10-20% reduction in LCP, for a configured customer app we are seeing the LCP reduce from 20-23 seconds to about 15-20 seconds.
Description
Tip
Add a TL;DR when the description is longer than 500 words or extremely technical (helps the content, marketing, and DevRel team).
Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change. Add links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant to the PR.
Fixes #
Issue Numberor
Fixes
Issue URLWarning
If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the maintainers if the issue is valid.
Automation
/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"
🔍 Cypress test results
Tip
🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉
Workflow run: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/12908010770
Commit: fc26db6
Cypress dashboard.
Tags:
@tag.AllSpec:
Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:35:05 UTC
Communication
Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?
Summary by CodeRabbit
Tests
DataTreeEvaluatorfocusing onactionsToUpdate.Refactor
Performance
New Features