Adding code to trigger state creation for a graph #155
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. 📝 WalkthroughSummary by CodeRabbit
WalkthroughThese changes update the state creation API to require a Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant API_Route
participant Controller
participant DB
Client->>API_Route: POST /graph/{graph_name}/states/create
API_Route->>Controller: create_states(namespace_name, graph_name, body, ...)
Controller->>DB: Fetch GraphTemplate by graph_name & namespace_name
alt GraphTemplate found
Controller->>Controller: get_node_template(graph_template, identifier)
alt NodeTemplate found
Controller->>DB: Insert State with identifier, node_name, etc.
DB-->>Controller: State inserted
Controller-->>API_Route: CreateResponseModel
API_Route-->>Client: Response
else NodeTemplate not found
Controller-->>API_Route: 404 NodeTemplate not found
end
else GraphTemplate not found
Controller-->>API_Route: 404 GraphTemplate not found
end
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~15 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
Note ⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
state-manager/app/controller/create_states.py (1)
59-59: Missing identifier field in ResponseStateModel constructorThe ResponseStateModel constructor is missing the new
identifierfield. According to the model definition increate_models.pyline 15, this field should be included.- states=[ResponseStateModel(state_id=str(state.id), node_name=state.node_name, graph_name=state.graph_name, inputs=state.inputs, created_at=state.created_at) for state in newStates] + states=[ResponseStateModel(state_id=str(state.id), node_name=state.node_name, identifier=state.identifier, graph_name=state.graph_name, inputs=state.inputs, created_at=state.created_at) for state in newStates]
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
state-manager/app/controller/create_states.py(1 hunks)state-manager/app/models/create_models.py(1 hunks)state-manager/app/models/db/state.py(1 hunks)state-manager/app/routes.py(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: NiveditJain
PR: exospherehost/exospherehost#132
File: state-manager/app/controller/upsert_graph_template.py:11-27
Timestamp: 2025-08-03T16:46:04.030Z
Learning: In the exospherehost codebase, for upsert operations on graph templates, the team prioritizes API idempotency over avoiding race conditions in the database layer implementation. The approach of separate find and insert/update operations is acceptable when the API behavior remains consistent.
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (2)
state-manager/app/models/db/state.py (1)
state-manager/app/models/enqueue_response.py (1)
StateModel(6-10)
state-manager/app/routes.py (3)
state-manager/app/models/create_models.py (2)
CreateResponseModel(25-27)CreateRequestModel(21-22)state-manager/app/utils/check_secret.py (1)
check_api_key(15-19)state-manager/app/controller/create_states.py (1)
create_states(23-64)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
state-manager/app/models/create_models.py (1)
15-15: LGTM!Good addition of the
identifierfield with a clear description. Maintaining bothnode_nameandidentifierin the response model ensures backward compatibility while supporting the new identifier-based workflow.state-manager/app/routes.py (3)
58-58: LGTM!Good API design choice to make the graph context explicit in the URL path. This change aligns well with the requirement to tie state creation to specific graphs.
64-64: LGTM!Function signature correctly updated to include the new
graph_nameparameter from the path.
74-74: LGTM!Controller call properly updated to pass the new
graph_nameparameter.state-manager/app/controller/create_states.py (6)
1-2: LGTM!Necessary import additions for the new functionality.
7-8: LGTM!Required model imports for graph template and node template handling.
23-23: LGTM!Function signature correctly updated to include the
graph_nameparameter.
28-31: LGTM!Proper graph template lookup with appropriate 404 error handling when the graph template is not found.
34-34: LGTM!Correct usage of the helper function to get the node template by identifier.
38-41: LGTM!State creation logic correctly uses the identifier from the input and derives node details from the matched template.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
state-manager/app/controller/create_states.py (1)
59-59: Missingidentifierfield in ResponseStateModelThe
ResponseStateModelnow requires anidentifierfield (added in line 15 of create_models.py), but it's not included in the response construction.- states=[ResponseStateModel(state_id=str(state.id), node_name=state.node_name, graph_name=state.graph_name, inputs=state.inputs, created_at=state.created_at) for state in newStates] + states=[ResponseStateModel(state_id=str(state.id), node_name=state.node_name, identifier=state.identifier, graph_name=state.graph_name, inputs=state.inputs, created_at=state.created_at) for state in newStates]
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
state-manager/app/controller/create_states.py(1 hunks)state-manager/app/controller/enqueue_states.py(1 hunks)state-manager/app/models/create_models.py(1 hunks)state-manager/app/models/db/graph_template_model.py(2 hunks)state-manager/app/models/enqueue_response.py(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (2)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: NiveditJain
PR: exospherehost/exospherehost#132
File: state-manager/app/controller/upsert_graph_template.py:11-27
Timestamp: 2025-08-03T16:46:04.030Z
Learning: In the exospherehost codebase, for upsert operations on graph templates, the team prioritizes API idempotency over avoiding race conditions in the database layer implementation. The approach of separate find and insert/update operations is acceptable when the API behavior remains consistent.
📚 Learning: in the exospherehost codebase, for upsert operations on graph templates, the team prioritizes api id...
Learnt from: NiveditJain
PR: exospherehost/exospherehost#132
File: state-manager/app/controller/upsert_graph_template.py:11-27
Timestamp: 2025-08-03T16:46:04.030Z
Learning: In the exospherehost codebase, for upsert operations on graph templates, the team prioritizes API idempotency over avoiding race conditions in the database layer implementation. The approach of separate find and insert/update operations is acceptable when the API behavior remains consistent.
Applied to files:
state-manager/app/controller/create_states.py
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (3)
state-manager/app/models/create_models.py (1)
state-manager/app/models/graph_models.py (1)
UpsertGraphTemplateRequest(8-9)
state-manager/app/models/db/graph_template_model.py (1)
state-manager/app/models/node_template_model.py (1)
NodeTemplate(5-11)
state-manager/app/controller/create_states.py (4)
state-manager/app/models/state_status_enum.py (1)
StateStatusEnum(4-14)state-manager/app/models/db/state.py (1)
State(7-16)state-manager/app/models/db/graph_template_model.py (2)
GraphTemplate(13-86)get_node_by_identifier(35-40)state-manager/app/models/node_template_model.py (1)
NodeTemplate(5-11)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
state-manager/app/models/enqueue_response.py (1)
9-9: LGTM!The addition of the
identifierfield toStateModelis consistent with the broader refactoring to use node identifiers throughout the codebase.state-manager/app/controller/enqueue_states.py (1)
43-43: LGTM!Correctly includes the
identifierfield from the state object in the response model.state-manager/app/models/create_models.py (2)
8-8: LGTM!The
identifierfield with its accurate description properly replaces the previousnode_nameandgraph_namefields in the request model.
15-15: LGTM!The addition of the
identifierfield toResponseStateModelmaintains consistency with the identifier-based node referencing pattern.state-manager/app/controller/create_states.py (2)
16-21: LGTM!The helper function efficiently uses the new O(1) lookup method from GraphTemplate, addressing the previous performance concern.
28-34: LGTM!Proper validation of graph template existence and node template retrieval using the identifier.
1 participant
No description provided.