Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix the request comments count #4235

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Aug 1, 2024
Merged

Fix the request comments count #4235

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 7 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
85fb94f
change the comments count to include asset comment
wendyyang Jul 24, 2024
2a0f5b3
include the labware comments
wendyyang Jul 26, 2024
174c98b
fix the linting issue
wendyyang Jul 26, 2024
e3b1ddd
change the way to get request all comments
wendyyang Jul 29, 2024
db3e399
fix the format
wendyyang Jul 29, 2024
d09a0eb
add test on get_all_comments
wendyyang Jul 30, 2024
f4e358c
fix the request page comment count
wendyyang Jul 30, 2024
1b3075c
minor change in test to accomplish the convention
wendyyang Jul 31, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions app/models/request.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -563,6 +563,11 @@
def manifest_processed!
end

def self.get_all_comments(request)
dasunpubudumal marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
counts = Comment.counts_for_requests([request])
counts[request.id]
end

Check warning on line 569 in app/models/request.rb

View check run for this annotation

Codecov / codecov/patch

app/models/request.rb#L566-L569 

Added lines #L566 - L569 were not covered by tests
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Handy that this counts_for_requests method existed already! Looks like that's used for a similar link on the Pipeline inbox page, e.g. here - https://training.sequencescape.psd.sanger.ac.uk/pipelines/51


private

def calculate_next_request_type_id
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion app/views/requests/show.html.erb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@

<% add :about, "This page displays details of requests" %>
<% add :menu, "View event history" => history_request_path(@request) -%>
<% add :menu, (pluralize @request.comments.size, "comment") => request_comments_path(@request) -%>
<% add :menu, (pluralize Request.get_all_comments(@request), "comment") => request_comments_path(@request) -%>

<% if can?(:cancel, @request) && @request.try(:may_cancel_before_started?) %>
<% add :menu, { "Cancel" => cancel_request_url(@request) }, { confirm: "Are you sure you want to cancel this request?" } -%>
Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions app/views/shared/_batch.html.erb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -55,8 +55,8 @@
<% end %>

<td><%= request.state.humanize %></td>

<td><%= link_to (pluralize request.comments.size, 'comment'), request_comments_url(request) %></td>
<td><%= link_to (pluralize Request.get_all_comments(request), 'comment'), request_comments_url(request) %></td>

</tr>
<% end -%>
Expand Down
17 changes: 17 additions & 0 deletions spec/models/request_spec.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -494,4 +494,21 @@
expect(subject[request_type2].started).to eq(1)
end
end

describe '.get_all_comments' do
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
describe '.get_all_comments' do
describe '#get_all_comments' do

I was going to say that this is the convention elsewhere in Sequencescape. But it looks like we've got both!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I did see both and not sure what is the difference. if they are the same, look like using '#' is more than '.'

Copy link
Member

@yoldas yoldas Aug 1, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

'.' is for class methods. '#' is for instance methods.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

in this case, I should use '.' then?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The signature self.get_all_comments(request) shows it is a class method. Test for this method by convention will have a '.' prefix.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, thanks! will change back my initial one.

let(:labware) { create :labware }
let(:receptacle) { create :receptacle, labware: labware }
let(:request) { create :request, asset: receptacle }

before do
create :comment, commentable: labware, description: 'comment on labware'
create :comment, commentable: receptacle, description: 'comment on receptacle'
create :comment, commentable: request, description: 'first comment on request'
create :comment, commentable: request, description: 'second comment on request'
end

it 'returns all of the comments including associated labware, receptacle and request itself' do
expect(described_class.get_all_comments(request)).to eq(4)
end
end
end
Loading