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.

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

Issue2467: Support Core.AlternateKeys #2470

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Aug 8, 2022
Merged

Conversation

xuzhg
Copy link
Member

@xuzhg xuzhg commented Jul 26, 2022

Issues

This pull request fixes #2467.

Description

  • Support Org.OData.Core.V1.AlternateKeys.

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

  • [x ] Test cases added
  • [x ] Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

Additional work necessary

If documentation update is needed, please add "Docs Needed" label to the issue and provide details about the required document change in the issue.

@xuzhg xuzhg force-pushed the AlternateCoreVocabulary branch from a84ea21 to 07e1196 Compare July 28, 2022 20:46
@xuzhg xuzhg requested a review from ElizabethOkerio July 29, 2022 17:59
xuzhg and others added 2 commits August 8, 2022 08:14
Co-authored-by: Clément Habinshuti <clhabins@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Clément Habinshuti <clhabins@microsoft.com>
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 112 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Medium
Size       : +82 -30
Percentile : 42.4%

Total files changed: 8

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +67 -27
.bsl : +15 -3

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@xuzhg
Copy link
Member Author

xuzhg commented Aug 8, 2022

@habbes Thanks for your review and suggestions.

@xuzhg xuzhg merged commit 7275ffa into master Aug 8, 2022
@@ -2146,14 +2146,22 @@ public static bool IsKey(this IEdmProperty property)
/// <param name="model">The model to be used.</param>
/// <param name="type">Reference to the calling object.</param>
/// <param name="alternateKey">Dictionary of alias and structural properties for the alternate key.</param>
public static void AddAlternateKeyAnnotation(this EdmModel model, IEdmEntityType type, IDictionary<string, IEdmProperty> alternateKey)
/// <param name="useCore">A flag to indicate which alternate term to use.
/// If ture, 'Org.OData.Core.V1.AlternateKeys' is used, otherwise, 'OData.Community.Keys.V1.AlternateKeys' is used.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

typo

{
EdmUtil.CheckArgumentNull(model, "model");
EdmUtil.CheckArgumentNull(type, "type");
EdmUtil.CheckArgumentNull(alternateKey, "alternateKey");

IEdmTerm alternateKeysTerm = useCore ? CoreVocabularyModel.AlternateKeysTerm : AlternateKeysVocabularyModel.AlternateKeysTerm;

IEdmComplexType propertyRefType = useCore ? CoreVocabularyModel.PropertyRefType : AlternateKeysVocabularyModel.PropertyRefType;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

UT and handling of duplicate entries under each annotation namespace?


// For backwards-compability, we merge the alternate keys from community and core vocabulary annotations.

retrieveAnnotationAction(annotationValue);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The output of GetAlternateKeysAnnotation(this IEdmModel model, IEdmEntityType type) does not honor the unicity requirements from the community vocabulary spec:

Services SHOULD NOT return multiple alternate key definitions for the same entity type that are composed of the exact same set of properties.

The alternate keys are not "merged" as the comment line 3483 calls out, it's instead an union that occurs.

Debug.Assert(keys != null, "expected IEdmCollectionExpression for alternate key annotation value");

foreach (IEdmRecordExpression key in keys.Elements.OfType<IEdmRecordExpression>())
Action<IEdmVocabularyAnnotation> retrieveAnnotationAction = ann =>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Define a private static function rather than this action closure which will incur an extra allocation for each call.

@gathogojr gathogojr deleted the AlternateCoreVocabulary branch October 13, 2022 08:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Update ODL to use configurable alternate key vocabulary
3 participants