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

Fix Auto-Expand Regression #2585

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 9, 2022
Merged

Conversation

ificator
Copy link
Contributor

Issues

Fixes #2584

Description

  1. Make "GetAutoSelectPaths" and "GetAutoExpandPaths" behave like "GetAutoSelectProperties" when "baseEntityType" is null
  2. Avoid some unnecessary allocations

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

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

…tAutoSelectProperties" when "baseEntityType" is null

2. Avoid some unnecessary allocations
{
switch (this.stage)
{
case 0:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can't this just be:

case 0:
  this.stage = 1;
  return true;

default:
  return this.derivedEnumerator.MoveNext();

The compiler might be optimizing that out, but I think it will be faster and it's easier to read

@KenitoInc
Copy link
Contributor

@ificator Kindly fix conflicts

@ificator
Copy link
Contributor Author

ificator commented Nov 1, 2021

@KenitoInc it looks like #2588 fixed the original issue (null baseEntityType asserting when it previously didn't), so I guess the question is do we want my refactoring to avoid allocations? If so, I'll merge those changes in and convert this PR into a PR specifically for that.

@KenitoInc
Copy link
Contributor

@KenitoInc it looks like #2588 fixed the original issue (null baseEntityType asserting when it previously didn't), so I guess the question is do we want my refactoring to avoid allocations? If so, I'll merge those changes in and convert this PR into a PR specifically for that.

If we are avoiding allocations for performance improvement, then that's fine.

@marabooy
Copy link
Member

@ificator could you kindly rebase your changes to master so we can proceed with resolving this issue. Many thanks for your contribution.

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 84 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Small
Size       : +60 -24
Percentile : 33.6%

Total files changed: 3

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +60 -24

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 detetcted.
  • 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.

@@ -175,6 +164,11 @@ private static bool HasAutoExpandProperty(this IEdmModel edmModel, IEdmStructure
{
if (IsAutoSelect(property, pathProperty, edmStructuredType, edmModel, querySettings))
{
if (autoSelectProperties == null)
{
autoSelectProperties = new List<SelectModelPath>(1);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see the value in having to perform this null check every iteration. It probably makes more sense to just put line 160 back


public SelfAndDerivedEnumerator(IEdmStructuredType structuredType, IEdmModel edmModel)
{
if (structuredType == null)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Given that this is all internal, these null checks probably make more sense as Debug.Asserts

@Sreejithpin
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @ificator , will be great if you can look at comments and rebase

Copy link
Member

@mikepizzo mikepizzo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:shipit:

@KenitoInc
Copy link
Contributor

@ificator Thanks for this PR

@KenitoInc KenitoInc merged commit 46a0d5a into OData:master Jan 9, 2022
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.

Regression in AutoExpand logic
6 participants