feat: Reports #20
feat: Reports #20
Conversation
src/Reports/index.ts
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| generateReport(type: ReportProcessorType, filter?: ReportFilter) { | ||
| _generateReport(type: 'balanceSheet' | 'cashflow', filter?: ReportFilter) { | ||
| return this._root._query( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| return this._root._query( | |
| return this._query( |
So it also takes the pool id into account when caching the observable
src/Reports/index.ts
Outdated
| } | ||
| [type, filter?.from, filter?.to, filter?.groupBy], | ||
| () => | ||
| defer(() => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
doesn't need the defer here. The callback being called won't immediately fire off requests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hinted at by the fact that the callback inside defer isn't an async function
src/Centrifuge.ts
Outdated
| */ | ||
| _queryIPFS<Result>(hash: string): Query<Result> { | ||
| return this._query([hash], () => this._getIPFSObservable(hash), { | ||
| valueCacheTime: 120, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
valueCacheTime can be removed, because ipfs files are immutable
src/Reports/Processor.ts
Outdated
| principalPayments: principalRepayments, | ||
| ...(subtype === 'publicCredit' && { realizedPL: day.sumRealizedProfitFifoByPeriod }), | ||
| interestPayments: interest, | ||
| assetAcquisitions: aquisistions, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any specific reason to go with acquisitions here? Just asking because it is not a term we use anywhere else (either in the protocol code, subquery schema, or the UI).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was looking for a general term that I could use for "Asset purchases" and "Asset financings" so that I wouldn't have to make the distinction between public and private credit. But since the term isn't used anywhere else I guess it makes sense to leave them as separate keys
| await firstValueFrom(reports.balanceSheet(filter)) | ||
| // TODO: Can't spy on es module | ||
| expect(processBalanceSheetSpy.callCount).to.equal(1) | ||
| it('should retrieve 6 months worth of data and group by day, month, quarter and year', async () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Super thorough testing, great to see!!
Co-authored-by: Jeroen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jeroen <[email protected]>
| () => { | ||
| const dateFilter = { | ||
| timestamp: { | ||
| greaterThan: filter?.from, | ||
| lessThan: filter?.to, | ||
| lessThanOrEqualTo: filter?.to && `${filter.to.split('T')[0]}T23:59:59.999Z`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
curious why lessThan: filter?.to wasn't sufficient
There was a problem hiding this comment.
depending on the exact time of day (seconds) either the day was included or not, this made it more reliable. Maybe worth looking into converting to UTC, that may be causing the problem
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I messed around with it and I can't find another reliable way to make sure the lessThan day gets included
* activate build-n-test on main branch too * temporarily test the release workflow * remove condition to test * fix naming convention step * fix yarn version syntax * Add readme and fix yarn version for alpha * Fix the yarn gitignore * Add alpha version logic to prepare-release * fix alpha script path * Try to fix ancestor branch issue for yarn * Fix git push and release creation * fix long version of setup-node commit * keep trying to fix the git push * Still figuring out yarn version on CI * Fix typo * trying out different approaches for git push from GHA * chore:Bump version to 0.0.0-alpha.0 * push new version to PR when reviewed * create releases on version bump * update README * add alpha explanaition to README * make sure only one label is applied to the PR * Update naming convention comments * make sure comments are handled even when checks fail * better messaging for PR naming * fix job URL * fix permissions for title checker * fail if naming checks are not working * fix the version bump process * fix naming checks --------- Co-authored-by: GitHub Actions <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #20 +/- ##
======================================
Coverage ? 0.00%
======================================
Files ? 2
Lines ? 3
Branches ? 0
======================================
Hits ? 0
Misses ? 3
Partials ? 0 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Description
This pull request...
#