fix: object index filters #62
Conversation
WalkthroughThe recent changes focus on refining object filter parsing, restructuring test data formats, and enhancing filter logic conditions in various test scenarios. These updates aim to improve the accuracy and flexibility of object filtering within the Changes
Sequence Diagrams (Beta)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant JsonTemplateParser
participant Lexer
participant DataStructure
User->>JsonTemplateParser: Call parseObjectFilter()
JsonTemplateParser->>Lexer: Check for '~' or '!'
Lexer-->>JsonTemplateParser: Return match result
JsonTemplateParser->>Lexer: Check for '[' with offset 1
Lexer-->>JsonTemplateParser: Return match result
JsonTemplateParser->>DataStructure: Apply filter based on conditions
DataStructure-->>JsonTemplateParser: Return filtered data
JsonTemplateParser-->>User: Return result
Poem
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 (
|
Coverage report
Test suite run success164 tests passing in 3 suites. Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from c5f90b6 |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #62 +/- ##
===========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
===========================================
Files 10 14 +4
Lines 3078 4549 +1471
Branches 726 1078 +352
===========================================
+ Hits 3078 4549 +1471 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![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
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (4)
- src/parser.ts (1 hunks)
- test/scenarios/filters/data.ts (1 hunks)
- test/scenarios/filters/object_filters.jt (1 hunks)
- test/scenarios/filters/object_indexes.jt (1 hunks)
Additional context used
Biome
src/parser.ts
[error] 1480-1480: Using this in a static context can be confusing. (lint/complexity/noThisInStatic)
this refers to the class.
Unsafe fix: Use the class name instead.
[error] 1486-1486: Using this in a static context can be confusing. (lint/complexity/noThisInStatic)
this refers to the class.
Unsafe fix: Use the class name instead.
[error] 1493-1493: Using this in a static context can be confusing. (lint/complexity/noThisInStatic)
this refers to the class.
Unsafe fix: Use the class name instead.
[error] 1524-1524: Using this in a static context can be confusing. (lint/complexity/noThisInStatic)
this refers to the class.
Unsafe fix: Use the class name instead.
Additional comments not posted (4)
test/scenarios/filters/object_indexes.jt (1)
7-7: Updated object manipulation syntax aligns with the intended fix for object index filters.test/scenarios/filters/object_filters.jt (1)
7-7: Updated filter condition to check for non-string types enhances consistency in object index filters.test/scenarios/filters/data.ts (1)
43-47: Restructured output data format from an object with key-value pairs to an array of objects supports the updated test scenarios.src/parser.ts (1)
468-472: Refined condition for excluding elements inparseObjectFiltermethod aligns with the intended fix for object index filters.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- test/scenarios/filters/data.ts (2 hunks)
- test/scenarios/filters/invalid_object_index_filters.jt (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- test/scenarios/filters/data.ts
Additional comments not posted (1)
test/scenarios/filters/invalid_object_index_filters.jt (1)
1-1: LGTM! Good addition to test the handling of invalid object index filters.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- test/scenarios/filters/object_filters.jt (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- test/scenarios/filters/object_filters.jt
|
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
obj{!["a", "b"]} is working but obj{!(.a==1}) was failing so this is fixing the same
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-2160
Please explain the objectives of your changes below
Put down any required details on the broader aspect of your changes. If there are any dependent changes, mandatorily mention them here
Any changes to existing capabilities/behaviour, mention the reason & what are the changes ?
N/A
Any new dependencies introduced with this change?
N/A
Any new generic utility introduced or modified. Please explain the changes.
N/A
Any technical or performance related pointers to consider with the change?
N/A
@coderabbitai review
Developer checklist
My code follows the style guidelines of this project
No breaking changes are being introduced.
All related docs linked with the PR?
All changes manually tested?
Any documentation changes needed with this change?
Is the PR limited to 10 file changes?
Is the PR limited to one linear task?
Are relevant unit and component test-cases added?
Reviewer checklist
Is the type of change in the PR title appropriate as per the changes?
Verified that there are no credentials or confidential data exposed with the changes.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Tests