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

In-memory order updater #5872

Draft
wants to merge 20 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

benjaminwil
Copy link
Contributor

@benjaminwil benjaminwil commented Oct 11, 2024

Summary

This pull request proposes a replacement to the default Spree::OrderUpdater that has new and improved functionality:

  • Increased performance due to the updater making fewer write calls to the database.
  • A built-in update simulator, so that changes to an order can be previewed before persisting them.

There may be some beneficial side-effects that come out of this new order updater implementation:

  • Significantly faster order factories, and thus a significantly faster test suite for Solidus gems and Solidus applications.

We don't expect this to be the default order updater implementation in the next minor version of Solidus, but we would like to propose it as the default for the next major version of Solidus.

Note: The commits on this pull request have a long list of co-authors, as the Super Good team is approaching this as a collaborative mob programming exercise.

Milestones

For this order updater, we intend to achieve the following during updates:

  1. Don't perform writes to the database.
  2. Preload associated records to eliminate reads required.

We appreciate that there is a lot of complexity to achieving these goals (dealing with active promotions, for example).

Notes

  • We should provide more context about performance gains in this PR description. It would be insightful to include the actual number of writes the current Spree::OrderUpdater makes on a typical recalculate.
  • We should further explain why a production store may want to use an order update simulator so it's clear why this feature is worth having. For now, I'll just say that we have worked with stores who could benefit from this feature. Sometimes admins must make significant changes to completed orders, and it would be valuable for them to preview a set of changes before submitting them and causing updates on many order-associated tables.

Checklist

Check out our PR guidelines for more details.

The following are mandatory for all PRs:

The following are not always needed:

  • 📖 I have updated the README to account for my changes.
  • 📑 I have documented new code with YARD.
  • 🛣️ I have opened a PR to update the guides.
  • ✅ I have added automated tests to cover my changes.
  • 📸 I have attached screenshots to demo visual changes.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the changelog:solidus_core Changes to the solidus_core gem label Oct 11, 2024
@benjaminwil benjaminwil changed the title In memory order updater In-memory order updater Oct 11, 2024
@benjaminwil benjaminwil force-pushed the in-memory-order-updater branch 2 times, most recently from 27f19a8 to 340032c Compare October 11, 2024 22:19
@forkata forkata force-pushed the in-memory-order-updater branch from d22210b to d244646 Compare November 8, 2024 22:34
@jarednorman
Copy link
Member

Just making a note that we are waiting on Alistair to rebase #6026 against this.

@AlistairNorman could you just make sure that gets done at some point before the 20th? That way we can have it for our next session.

benjaminwil and others added 16 commits December 19, 2024 10:26
https://github.com/sds/db-query-matchers

Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Nick Van Doorn <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
In subsequent commits we'll ensure that this can update orders in
memory, without persisting changes using manipulative DB queries.

Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Nick Van Doorn <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
We want our new in-memory order updater to be able to persist or not
persist changes to the order record.

WORK IN PROGRESS

This is a first step in ensuring we don't need to write to the database
using the order updater. Clearly we have more work to do to ensure this
functions like the existing updater.

Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Nick Van Doorn <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
This is in service of supporting the InMemoryOrderUpdater's goal to not do database writes.
…atabase writes

We have prevented write calls to update the cost and `updated_at` of a
shipment, as well as allowed us to conditionally persist item totals, by
passing down the `persist` argument to that method.

Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Chris Todorov <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Update implies that we are persisting the change in Rails, which this
method does not do.

Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Update implies that we are persisting the change in Rails, which this
method does not do.

Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
These methods don't persist so it's more accurate to say that they
recalculate the total instead of saying that they update it.

Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Chris Todorov <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
We want all the methods that might persist data to be called update_
instead of recalculate to be clear that they hit the database.

Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Chris Todorov <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
This is calling the recalculate method not update_adjustments.

Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Chris Todorov <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
This puts all the update and recalculate methods together.

Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Chris Todorov <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
We want to start breaking out some of the complex logic of the in memory
updater into smaller more focused classes.

Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Chris Todorov <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
@AlistairNorman AlistairNorman force-pushed the in-memory-order-updater branch from a3bb1fc to 06e3a2a Compare December 19, 2024 18:27
sofiabesenski4 and others added 2 commits December 20, 2024 12:23
This is just a stub for now, but we want to eventually introduce a class
to handle running the promotion adjustments in memory.

Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
@stewart stewart force-pushed the in-memory-order-updater branch from 9fd5c8d to 27e4988 Compare December 20, 2024 21:30
stewart and others added 2 commits December 20, 2024 14:44
Co-Authored-By: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
This change more clearly splits up the logic for recalculating shipment/item
adjustment totals from the logic for persisting updated values to the database.

Continuing to colocating logic for recalculating item totals in one PORO makes
it easier to reason about and helps to simplify the higher-level order updater.

Co-Authored-By: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog:solidus_core Changes to the solidus_core gem
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants