Officer Table Overhaul #352
Conversation
DMalone87
commented
Mar 5, 2024
•
DMalone87
commented
- Adding tests for Officer API endpoints
- Creating association objects for:
- Accusation (Officer/Perpetrator)
- Employment (Officer/Agency)
- Added new officer endpoints
- Get all officers
- Get officer by ID
- Create Officer
- Adding tests for Officer API endpoints
- Creating association objects for:
- Accusation (Officer/Perpetrator)
- Employment (Officer/Agency)
backend/tests/test_officers.py
Outdated
| actual_incident_names = list( | ||
| filter(None, map(incident_name, actual_incidents)) | ||
| ) | ||
| assert set(actual_incident_names) == set(expected_incident_names) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: you can get more details in test failures by adding these to a class extending unittest.TestCase, then using unittest assertions (self.assertEqual(), for example)
- Get officer by id - Get all officers - Create officer
DMalone87
changed the title
| Officer.first_name.ilike(f"%{first_name}%"), | ||
| Officer.last_name.ilike(f"%{last_name}%") | ||
| )) | ||
| if len(names) == 0: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would be an empty string. We would never accept this case, would we? I think this case and next should have their values incremented. On the len(names) == 1 case, we would experience an out of bounds exception when indexing names[1].
| accusations: Optional[List[CreateAccusationSchema]] | ||
| state_ids: Optional[List[CreateStateIDSchema]] | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we have two identical schemas here except for optionality (CreateOfficerSchema and OfficerSchema)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They aren't entirely identical. The create version (schema_create) just excludes the ids. There's probably a cleaner way of doing it, but I haven't looked into it. Much of this code was inherited from an earlier cohort who have mostly moved on to other projects or left CfB.
