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

Jump to bottom

[4354] Add support for cursor based pagination in table view DSL #4355

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[4354] Add support for cursor based pagination in table view DSL #4355

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+1,145 −16

Conversation

frouene
Copy link
Contributor

@frouene frouene commented Dec 31, 2024

Bug: #4354

Pull request template

General purpose

What is the main goal of this pull request?

  • Bug fixes
  • New features
  • Documentation
  • Cleanup
  • Tests
  • Build / releng

Project management

  • Has the pull request been added to the relevant project and milestone? (Only if you know that your work is part of a specific iteration such as the current one)
  • Have the priority: and pr: labels been added to the pull request? (In case of doubt, start with the labels priority: low and pr: to review later)
  • Have the relevant issues been added to the pull request?
  • Have the relevant labels been added to the issues? (area:, difficulty:, type:)
  • Have the relevant issues been added to the same project and milestone as the pull request?
  • Has the CHANGELOG.adoc been updated to reference the relevant issues?
  • Have the relevant API breaks been described in the CHANGELOG.adoc? (Including changes in the GraphQL API)
  • In case of a change with a visual impact, are there any screenshots in the CHANGELOG.adoc? For example in doc/screenshots/2022.5.0-my-new-feature.png

Architectural decision records (ADR)

  • Does the title of the commit contributing the ADR start with [doc]?
  • Are the ADRs mentioned in the relevant section of the CHANGELOG.adoc?

Dependencies

  • Are the new / upgraded dependencies mentioned in the relevant section of the CHANGELOG.adoc?
  • Are the new dependencies justified in the CHANGELOG.adoc?

Frontend

This section is not relevant if your contribution does not come with changes to the frontend.

General purpose

  • Is the code properly tested? (Plain old JavaScript tests for business code and tests based on React Testing Library for the components)

Typing

We need to improve the typing of our code, as such, we require every contribution to come with proper TypeScript typing for both changes contributing new files and those modifying existing files.
Please ensure that the following statements are true for each file created or modified (this may require you to improve code outside of your contribution).

  • Variables have a proper type
  • Functions’ arguments have a proper type
  • Functions’ return type are specified
  • Hooks are properly typed:
    • useMutation<DATA_TYPE, VARIABLE_TYPE>(…)
    • useQuery<DATA_TYPE, VARIABLE_TYPE>(…)
    • useSubscription<DATA_TYPE, VARIABLE_TYPE>(…)
    • useMachine<CONTEXT_TYPE, EVENTS_TYPE>(…)
    • useState<STATE_TYPE>(…)
  • All components have a proper typing for their props
  • No useless optional chaining with ?. (if the GraphQL API specifies that a field cannot be null, do not treat it has potentially null for example)
  • Nullable values have a proper type (for example let diagram: Diagram | null = null;)

Backend

This section is not relevant if your contribution does not come with changes to the backend.

General purpose

  • Are all the event handlers tested?
  • Are the event processor tested?
  • Is the business code (services) tested?
  • Are diagram layout changes tested?

Architecture

  • Are data structure classes properly separated from behavioral classes?
  • Are all the relevant fields final?
  • Is any data structure mutable? If so, please write a comment indicating why
  • Are behavioral classes either stateless or side effect free?

Review

How to test this PR?

Please describe here the various use cases to test this pull request

  • Has the Kiwi TCMS test suite been updated with tests for this contribution?

@frouene frouene added this to the 2025.2.0 milestone Dec 31, 2024
@frouene frouene linked an issue Dec 31, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Add support for cursor based pagination in table view dsl #4354
Open
sbegaudeau
sbegaudeau requested changes Jan 3, 2025
View reviewed changes
packages/emf/backend/sirius-components-emf-tables/pom.xml
<parent>
<groupId>org.springframework.boot</groupId>
<artifactId>spring-boot-starter-parent</artifactId>
<version>3.3.3</version>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sidenote: there's a PR upgrading Spring Boot currently being reviewed, one way or another this will have to be updated depending on which PR gets merged first.

...rc/main/java/org/eclipse/sirius/components/view/emf/table/ViewTableDescriptionConverter.java
if (elementDescription.getDomainType() == null || elementDescription.getDomainType().isBlank()) {
return new PaginatedData(candidates, false, false, candidates.size());
PaginatedData paginatedResult;
if (elementDescription.getSemanticCandidatesExpression() != null && !elementDescription.getSemanticCandidatesExpression().isBlank()) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you convert one of the two Papaya example to use the view DSL because there's something I don't understand here. How could you choose to perform this for the specifier?

Is it possible for us to support a DomainType in the view DSL row semantic elements expression?

Copy link
Member

@sbegaudeau sbegaudeau Jan 3, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As I said on the ADR for the pagination back in October

Capture d’écran 2025-01-03 à 10 08 28

I don't see how RowDescription#domainType or RowDescription#preconditionExpression can still exist today. So unless I missed something, TableElementDescription should be removed since it does not make much sense for both CellDescription and RowDescription to share a common parent (that's an useless abstraction). On top of that both RowDescription#domainType and RowDescription#preconditionExpression should be deleted too because we will never be able to guess how they should behave instead of the specifier as said in October.

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, I keep them to provide a flawed solution if someone use domainType and semanticCandidatesExpression.
I will removed them

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@sbegaudeau sbegaudeau sbegaudeau requested changes

@pcdavid pcdavid Awaiting requested review from pcdavid pcdavid is a code owner

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
pr: to review soon priority: low
Projects
None yet
Milestone
2025.2.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add support for cursor based pagination in table view dsl
2 participants
@frouene @sbegaudeau