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

Fixes panel query for the publisher #1642

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 15, 2019
Merged

Conversation

NejcZdovc
Copy link
Contributor

@NejcZdovc NejcZdovc commented Feb 12, 2019

Related PR #1589

Resolves brave/brave-browser#3329

Related issues: brave/brave-browser#3244
Related issues: brave/brave-browser#3135
Related issues: brave/brave-browser#3043

Submitter Checklist:

  • Submitted a ticket for my issue if one did not already exist.
  • Used Github auto-closing keywords in the commit message.
  • Added/updated tests for this change (for new code or code which already has tests).
  • Verified that these changes build without errors on
    • Windows
    • macOS
    • Linux
  • Verified that these changes pass automated tests (npm test brave_unit_tests && npm test brave_browser_tests) on
    • Windows
    • macOS
    • Linux
  • Ran git rebase master (if needed).
  • Ran git rebase -i to squash commits (if needed).
  • Tagged reviewers and labelled the pull request as needed.
  • Request a security/privacy review as needed.
  • Add appropriate QA labels (QA/Yes or QA/No) to include the closed issue in milestone

Test Plan:

Reviewer Checklist:

  • New files have MPL-2.0 license header.
  • Request a security/privacy review as needed.
  • Adequate test coverage exists to prevent regressions
  • Verify test plan is specified in PR before merging to source

"WHERE pi.publisher_id=? AND ((ai.month = ? "
"AND ai.year = ? AND ai.reconcile_stamp = ?) OR "
"ai.percent IS NULL) LIMIT 1"));
"SELECT pi.publisher_id, pi.name, pi.url, pi.favIcon, "
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know this isn't the original PR; but I would recommend looking at situations where using a view makes sense (instead putting the select statement here). With a view, you can select from it like a table and there's a possibility you can re-use the view in other methods. Kind of nice because you abstract away the joins and basically just have the business logic in here

"SELECT IFNULL(percent, 0) FROM activity_info WHERE "
"publisher_id = ? AND reconcile_stamp = ? "
") as percent "
"FROM publisher_info AS pi WHERE pi.publisher_id = ? LIMIT 1"));

info_sql.BindString(0, filter.id);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

instead of hard-coding the number, you might initialize a variable (unsigned char, unsigned short, etc) to 0 and just ++ it on each field

unsigned short field_index = 0;
info_sql.BindString(field_index++, filter.id);
info_sql.BindInt64(field_index++, filter.reconcile_stamp);

info_sql.BindInt(2, filter.year);
info_sql.BindInt64(3, filter.reconcile_stamp);
info_sql.BindInt64(1, filter.reconcile_stamp);
info_sql.BindString(2, filter.id);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ID is being returned twice here; field 0 and 2. Is that correct?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@NejcZdovc NejcZdovc Feb 15, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes, we bind id in two places

Copy link
Member

@bsclifton bsclifton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Comments left- but since this was already approved and the fix is needed, I'm personally ++ on this

Copy link
Member

@kjozwiak kjozwiak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Uplift to 0.60.x approved after deliberating with @bsclifton @srirambv & @rebron 👍 Please make sure that all associated issue(s) are moved into the correct milestone.

@NejcZdovc NejcZdovc merged commit 34f4988 into 0.60.x Feb 15, 2019
@NejcZdovc NejcZdovc deleted the media-publisher-db-60 branch February 15, 2019 09:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants