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

Additional tests and fixes #35

Open
wants to merge 29 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

scottmcdonnell
Copy link
Contributor

I had a few issues with the 1.1.0 sync.

  • tests were not passing 100% for me
  • user names with spaces failing validation
  • users with no last name failing validation
  • concept task type missing - gazu.task.all_task_types_for_project(kitsu_project_id) => gazu.task.all_task_types()
  • concept where data =None was causing calculate_end_frame to fail
  • added fixtures to update the studio_settings for tests
  • added tests for entity Person
  • added tests for entity Edit
  • added tests for entity Concept
  • user isAdmin and isManager were not being set for me
  • added the the accessGroup to the project as users were not being assigned without it
  • delete projects setting bug

Lastly some of new bits were using the Ayon api via httpx to save users/projects etc but this is mixed with the existing server/kitsu/utils.py which uses Postgres for gets and Entity models to save and update. This I found really confusing, it should be all one or the other. It didn't make much sense to me for Ayon (in an ayon api endpoint) to be calling itself through the api when the models are available and the postgres connection is already initialised, it seems an unnecessary overhead, so I converted the api calls to model calls in utils.py to make it consistent.

I saw afterwards that this was discussed on discord a bit, and the preference was API, but I think it should be consistent throughout utils.py - so not sure what the team thinks on this one!

Screenshot 2024-02-25 at 15 00 48

scott added 26 commits February 20, 2024 18:32
…ngs.delete_projects - tests for deleting project with setting enabled and disabled
…we skip onto the next entity rather than stopping.
@scottmcdonnell
Copy link
Contributor Author

added support for LauncherAction #36

scott added 2 commits March 14, 2024 22:01
(cherry picked from commit b1da619020ec2b4d5ed1b2d6b36d4303bae052c4)
@EmberLightVFX
Copy link
Contributor

EmberLightVFX commented Mar 27, 2024

Would it be possible to change the arrow-icon to the Kitsu icon for the "Show in Kitsu" button?
You can get their icon here: https://www.cg-wire.com/_nuxt/logo-kitsu.de716c4b.png (might want to make it smaller)

@MustafaJafar MustafaJafar requested a review from iLLiCiTiT April 19, 2024 12:20
@MustafaJafar MustafaJafar linked an issue Apr 19, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@iLLiCiTiT
Copy link
Member

Hello, could you update the changes? Could you also split the PR into more PRs? There is too much changes for review (smaller PRs -> faster review).

@scottmcdonnell
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello, could you update the changes? Could you also split the PR into more PRs? There is too much changes for review (smaller PRs -> faster review).

Thanks for taking a look. I can give it a go breaking it down into different PRs.
Before I go ahead can I ask you to review one big structural change in this PR to see if I should proceed down this path?

on the server side there is a mix between using EntityModels and api calls in the current code. This PR replaces any api with Entity in order to make it consistent. From above:

Lastly some of new bits were using the Ayon api via httpx to save users/projects etc but this is mixed with the existing server/kitsu/utils.py which uses Postgres for gets and Entity models to save and update. This I found really confusing, it should be all one or the other. It didn't make much sense to me for Ayon (in an ayon api endpoint) to be calling itself through the api when the models are available and the postgres connection is already initialised, it seems an unnecessary overhead, so I converted the api calls to model calls in utils.py to make it consistent.

For example:
7559d8b

@iLLiCiTiT
Copy link
Member

iLLiCiTiT commented May 3, 2024

Before I go ahead can I ask you to review one big structural change in this PR to see if I should proceed down this path?

The issue is that different changes should be reviewed by different people, that's why I asked for split. It is hard to tell which change is related to what.

There are some small bugfixes and big feature changes next to it (multiple features). The features usually needs discussion or may not be merged because of different opinion, but the bugfixes can be merged right away.

@scottmcdonnell
Copy link
Contributor Author

Before I go ahead can I ask you to review one big structural change in this PR to see if I should proceed down this path?

The issue is that different changes should be reviewed by different people, that's why I asked for split. It is hard to tell which change is related to what.

There are some small bugfixes and big feature changes next to it (multiple features). The features usually needs discussion or may not be merged because of different opinion, but the bugfixes can be merged right away.

Fair enough, I get that. Would it be possible to get feedback on the replacement of API for Entities please?
7559d8b

If that is given the thumbs up or down I will know how to proceed with the PRs.

@iLLiCiTiT
Copy link
Member

iLLiCiTiT commented May 3, 2024

Fair enough, I get that. Would it be possible to get feedback on the replacement of API for Entities please?
7559d8b

@martastain

Note that it is hard to tell, because for example I don't know which exact changes are related to it.

@m-u-r-p-h-y
Copy link
Member

First of all thank you @scottmcdonnell for your contribution! To push it through, we really need to split this massive PR to smaller pieces as it is not approvable in the current state.

each bulleted item in your description should be a separate PR honestly.

@scottmcdonnell
Copy link
Contributor Author

First of all thank you @scottmcdonnell for your contribution! To push it through, we really need to split this massive PR to smaller pieces as it is not approvable in the current state.

each bulleted item in your description should be a separate PR honestly.

No problem, I will break into smaller PRs. I am on a few big projects at the moment but will come back to this as soon as I can.

@BigRoy
Copy link
Contributor

BigRoy commented Jun 3, 2024

Would be great to get some 🔥 progress into this one.
Someone else just hit what seems like something that this PR may solve? See on Ynput discord here.

@scottmcdonnell
Copy link
Contributor Author

Would be great to get some 🔥 progress into this one. Someone else just hit what seems like something that this PR may solve? See on Ynput discord here.

Sorry was very snowed under. PRs started. Can I make PRs dependant on each other? The testing requires fixtures and set up that is common to each PR and some changes have larger dependencies.

@MustafaJafar MustafaJafar added type: bug Something isn't working community Issues and PRs coming from the community members test labels Jul 1, 2024
@MustafaJafar
Copy link
Contributor

Hello,
I think this PR is big, would be better to break it down into smaller PRs ?
e.g. could we have separate PR for the launcher action ?

@iLLiCiTiT iLLiCiTiT added tests PR contains new unit or integration test or improves the existing ones and removed test labels Sep 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
community Issues and PRs coming from the community members tests PR contains new unit or integration test or improves the existing ones type: bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Show In Kitsu - LauncherAction
6 participants