enhance: ensure that each element stack in microlearning can only be submitted once #4278
Conversation
Current Aviator status
This PR was merged manually (without Aviator). Merging manually can negatively impact the performance of the queue. Consider using Aviator next time.
See the real-time status of this PR on the
Aviator webapp.
Use the Aviator Chrome Extension
to see the status of your PR within GitHub.
|
WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes enhance the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (17)
packages/graphql/src/graphql/ops/QGetPreviousStackEvaluation.graphql (4)
3-5: LGTM: Essential evaluation fields are included.The main fields (
id,status, andscore) provide crucial information about the evaluation. These fields are well-chosen for identifying the evaluation, understanding its current state, and quickly assessing the result.Consider adding a
timestamporcompletedAtfield to provide temporal context for the evaluation, if not already available elsewhere in the system.
6-29: Comprehensive evaluation data, but consider clarifying the field name.The
evaluationsfield provides a wealth of information about each evaluation, allowing for efficient data retrieval in a single query. This is a good practice for reducing the number of network requests.The field name
evaluationsmight be slightly confusing as it's nested under what appears to be a single evaluation. Consider renaming it toevaluationDetailsorevaluationItemsif it represents multiple aspects of a single evaluation, or clarify in the documentation if it indeed represents multiple separate evaluations.
10-15: LGTM: Well-structured feedback data.The
feedbacksarray provides a clear structure for multiple feedback items per evaluation. The inclusion of fields likeixfor ordering andcorrectfor indicating correctness is particularly useful for quiz-like evaluations.Consider adding a
typefield to the feedback structure if there are different categories of feedback (e.g., "hint", "explanation", "correction"). This could enhance the flexibility and usability of the feedback data.
16-28: LGTM: Comprehensive evaluation details retrieved.The query fetches a wide range of fields providing a detailed view of the evaluation results. This includes information about choices, answers, scores, points, XP, solutions, and more. The inclusion of fields like
newPointsFromandnewXpFromsuggests a well-thought-out gamification aspect to the system.To optimize for performance and reduce unnecessary data transfer, consider implementing field selection at the resolver level. This would allow clients to request only the fields they need, especially useful for scenarios where not all details are required. You could use GraphQL directives or create separate queries for different levels of detail.
apps/frontend-pwa/src/pages/course/[courseId]/microlearning/[id]/[ix].tsx (1)
Line range hint
1-108: Consider broader implications of single submission functionalityWhile the addition of the
singleSubmissionprop is a good start, consider the following points to ensure a robust implementation:
User Experience: How will users be informed that they can only submit once? Consider adding a warning or confirmation dialog before submission.
Error Handling: Ensure proper error handling is in place if a user attempts to submit multiple times.
State Management: If not already implemented, consider adding state management to track whether a submission has occurred.
Backend Validation: Ensure that the backend also enforces the single submission rule to prevent potential exploits.
Testing: Add or update tests to cover the new single submission behavior.
These considerations will help create a more comprehensive and user-friendly implementation of the single submission feature.
packages/graphql/src/schema/question.ts (2)
130-130: LGTM! Consider updating documentation.The changes to the
IInstanceEvaluationinterface look good and align with the PR objective. The addition oflastResponseandcorrectnessproperties, along with makingexplanationnullable, provides more flexibility in handling evaluations.Consider updating any relevant documentation or comments to reflect these changes, especially explaining the purpose and expected usage of the new
lastResponseandcorrectnessproperties.Also applies to: 143-144
180-181: LGTM! Consider using consistent type naming.The addition of
lastResponseandcorrectnessfields to theInstanceEvaluationbuilder is consistent with the interface changes and looks good.For consistency, consider using
t.exposeJsoninstead oft.expose(..., { type: 'Json' })for thelastResponsefield, similar to howt.exposeFloatis used for thecorrectnessfield. This would make the code more uniform and potentially easier to read.packages/graphql/src/schema/query.ts (1)
282-291: LGTM! Consider adding error handling.The implementation of the
getPreviousStackEvaluationquery field looks good. It's well-structured, follows the existing naming conventions, and properly delegates the data fetching to thePracticeQuizService.Consider adding error handling in the resolver to catch and handle potential errors from the
PracticeQuizService.getPreviousStackEvaluationcall. This would improve the robustness of the query. For example:resolve(_, args, ctx) { - return PracticeQuizService.getPreviousStackEvaluation(args, ctx) + try { + return PracticeQuizService.getPreviousStackEvaluation(args, ctx) + } catch (error) { + console.error('Error fetching previous stack evaluation:', error) + return null + } },This change would ensure that any errors are logged and the query gracefully returns null instead of potentially crashing the GraphQL server.
packages/graphql/src/public/schema.graphql (1)
1072-1072: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The new query method
getPreviousStackEvaluationis a great addition that supports the PR objective. It provides a clear way to retrieve previous stack evaluations, which is crucial for ensuring each element stack can only be submitted once.To enhance clarity and maintainability, consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this method, like so:
# Retrieves the previous evaluation for a given stack, ensuring single submission per stack getPreviousStackEvaluation(stackId: Int!): StackFeedbackThis comment would provide quick context for other developers working with the schema.
packages/graphql/src/ops.ts (4)
1928-1932: LGTM! Query arguments type is well-defined.The
QueryGetPreviousStackEvaluationArgstype is correctly defined with thestackIdfield. This ensures type safety when using thegetPreviousStackEvaluationquery.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this type, e.g.:
+// Arguments for the getPreviousStackEvaluation query export type QueryGetPreviousStackEvaluationArgs = { stackId: Scalars['Int']['input']; };
3405-3411: LGTM! Query types are well-structured.The
GetPreviousStackEvaluationQueryVariablesandGetPreviousStackEvaluationQuerytypes are correctly defined and provide proper typing for the new query. The response type includes all necessary fields, including the newly addedcorrectnessandlastResponse.For consistency with other query types in the file, consider adding a brief comment above each type, e.g.:
+// Variables for the GetPreviousStackEvaluation query export type GetPreviousStackEvaluationQueryVariables = Exact<{ stackId: Scalars['Int']['input']; }>; +// Response type for the GetPreviousStackEvaluation query export type GetPreviousStackEvaluationQuery = { __typename?: 'Query', getPreviousStackEvaluation?: { __typename?: 'StackFeedback', id: number, status: StackFeedbackStatus, score?: number | null, evaluations?: Array<{ __typename?: 'InstanceEvaluation', instanceId: number, pointsMultiplier?: number | null, explanation?: string | null, choices?: any | null, numAnswers?: number | null, answers?: any | null, score: number, pointsAwarded?: number | null, percentile?: number | null, newPointsFrom?: any | null, xpAwarded?: number | null, newXpFrom?: any | null, solutions?: any | null, solutionRanges?: any | null, lastResponse?: any | null, correctness?: number | null, feedbacks?: Array<{ __typename?: 'QuestionFeedback', ix: number, feedback?: string | null, correct?: boolean | null, value: string }> | null }> | null } | null };
3753-3753: LGTM! GraphQL document is well-defined.The
GetPreviousStackEvaluationDocumentconstant correctly defines the GraphQL document for the new query. It includes all necessary fields and is properly parameterized with thestackIdvariable.To improve readability, consider breaking down the document definition into multiple lines, especially for nested selections. For example:
export const GetPreviousStackEvaluationDocument = { "kind": "Document", "definitions": [{ "kind": "OperationDefinition", "operation": "query", "name": {"kind": "Name", "value": "GetPreviousStackEvaluation"}, "variableDefinitions": [{ "kind": "VariableDefinition", "variable": {"kind": "Variable", "name": {"kind": "Name", "value": "stackId"}}, "type": {"kind": "NonNullType", "type": {"kind": "NamedType", "name": {"kind": "Name", "value": "Int"}}} }], "selectionSet": { "kind": "SelectionSet", "selections": [ // ... (rest of the selections) ] } }] } as unknown as DocumentNode<GetPreviousStackEvaluationQuery, GetPreviousStackEvaluationQueryVariables>;This format makes it easier to read and maintain the document structure.
Line range hint
708-3753: Summary: Changes effectively support the "submit once" functionalityThe modifications to
packages/graphql/src/ops.tssuccessfully implement the necessary GraphQL types and queries to support the PR objective of ensuring each element stack can only be submitted once. Key changes include:
- Addition of
correctnessandlastResponsefields to theInstanceEvaluationtype.- Introduction of a new
getPreviousStackEvaluationquery.- Definition of associated types for query arguments and responses.
- Creation of the GraphQL document for the new query.
These changes provide a solid foundation for implementing the "submit once" feature in the frontend. The new query allows fetching previous evaluations, while the additional fields in
InstanceEvaluationenable more detailed tracking of submissions.To fully implement the "submit once" functionality:
- Ensure that the frontend uses the
getPreviousStackEvaluationquery before allowing new submissions.- Implement logic to compare the
lastResponsewith the current submission to prevent duplicate submissions.- Use the
correctnessfield to display feedback or limit further attempts based on the previous submission's accuracy.packages/graphql/src/ops.schema.json (2)
6940-6951: LGTM. Consider adding a description for the 'correctness' field.The new 'correctness' field is correctly defined as a Float type. However, adding a description would improve the schema's self-documentation.
Consider adding a description to clarify the purpose and expected range of the 'correctness' field. For example:
{ "name": "correctness", - "description": null, + "description": "A float value representing the correctness score (0.0 to 1.0) of the user's response.", "args": [], "type": { "kind": "SCALAR", "name": "Float", "ofType": null }, "isDeprecated": false, "deprecationReason": null },
7000-7011: LGTM. Consider adding a description for the 'lastResponse' field.The new 'lastResponse' field is correctly defined as a Json type, which provides flexibility for storing various response formats. However, adding a description would improve the schema's self-documentation.
Consider adding a description to clarify the purpose and expected content of the 'lastResponse' field. For example:
{ "name": "lastResponse", - "description": null, + "description": "A JSON object containing the user's most recent response to this stack element.", "args": [], "type": { "kind": "SCALAR", "name": "Json", "ofType": null }, "isDeprecated": false, "deprecationReason": null },apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx (1)
43-43: Nitpick: Add documentation for the newsingleSubmissionpropConsider adding JSDoc comments for the
singleSubmissionprop in theElementStackPropsinterface to enhance code readability and maintainability.packages/graphql/src/services/practiceQuizzes.ts (1)
2205-2206: Offer assistance with the TODO comment regarding code refactoring.The TODO suggests combining the logic with
respondToElementStackafter refactoring. Consolidating the evaluation logic could reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.Would you like help in refactoring these functions or creating shared utility methods? I can assist in outlining a plan to modularize the evaluation logic.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (11)
- apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx (6 hunks)
- apps/frontend-pwa/src/pages/course/[courseId]/microlearning/[id]/[ix].tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/graphql/src/graphql/ops/QGetPreviousStackEvaluation.graphql (1 hunks)
- packages/graphql/src/ops.schema.json (3 hunks)
- packages/graphql/src/ops.ts (5 hunks)
- packages/graphql/src/public/client.json (1 hunks)
- packages/graphql/src/public/schema.graphql (2 hunks)
- packages/graphql/src/public/server.json (1 hunks)
- packages/graphql/src/schema/query.ts (2 hunks)
- packages/graphql/src/schema/question.ts (3 hunks)
- packages/graphql/src/services/practiceQuizzes.ts (5 hunks)
Additional context used
Biome
apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx
[error] 146-146: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
[error] 160-160: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
[error] 381-381: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
Additional comments not posted (17)
packages/graphql/src/graphql/ops/QGetPreviousStackEvaluation.graphql (2)
1-2: LGTM: Query definition and argument are well-structured.The query name
GetPreviousStackEvaluationis descriptive and clear. The use of a non-nullableInt!type forstackIdis appropriate for an ID field. The resolver namegetPreviousStackEvaluationmatches the query name, following good naming conventions.
1-31: Overall, well-structured and comprehensive query for retrieving previous stack evaluations.This GraphQL query is well-designed to fetch detailed information about previous stack evaluations. It provides a wealth of data including evaluation status, scores, feedback, and various gamification-related metrics. The structure allows for efficient retrieval of multiple aspects of an evaluation in a single query.
While the current implementation is solid, consider the suggestions made in previous comments for potential optimizations and clarity improvements:
- Adding a timestamp field for temporal context
- Clarifying the
evaluationsfield name- Adding a
typefield to the feedback structure- Implementing field selection for performance optimization
These minor enhancements could further improve the query's clarity and efficiency.
apps/frontend-pwa/src/pages/course/[courseId]/microlearning/[id]/[ix].tsx (1)
77-77: LGTM: Addition ofsingleSubmissionprop aligns with PR objective.The addition of the
singleSubmissionprop to theElementStackcomponent directly addresses the PR objective of ensuring that each element stack in microlearning can only be submitted once. This change looks good and is a step in the right direction.To ensure complete implementation:
- Please verify that the
ElementStackcomponent correctly handles this new prop to enforce single submissions.- Consider if any additional changes are needed in this file to support the new behavior, such as state management or user feedback.
Run the following script to verify the
ElementStackcomponent implementation:packages/graphql/src/schema/question.ts (1)
130-130: Summary: Changes align well with PR objectiveThe modifications to the
IInstanceEvaluationinterface andInstanceEvaluationbuilder provide the necessary structure to store and evaluate the last response. This aligns well with the PR objective of ensuring that each element stack in microlearning can only be submitted once.The addition of
lastResponseandcorrectnessproperties, along with makingexplanationnullable, offers more flexibility in handling evaluations and tracking user interactions. These changes should facilitate the implementation of the desired functionality.Also applies to: 143-144, 180-181
packages/graphql/src/public/client.json (1)
128-128: New GraphQL operation added: GetPreviousStackEvaluationThe new entry "GetPreviousStackEvaluation" has been added to the GraphQL client configuration. This addition is consistent with the existing format and naming conventions in the file.
Given the PR objective to "ensure that each element stack in microlearning can only be submitted once", this new operation likely retrieves the previous evaluation of a stack, which aligns with the goal of preventing multiple submissions.
To ensure this change doesn't introduce any unintended side effects, please run the following verification:
This script will help identify where and how the new operation is being used, ensuring it's implemented correctly and doesn't introduce any security or performance issues.
Verification successful
GetPreviousStackEvaluation Operation Verified Successfully
The new GraphQL operation
"GetPreviousStackEvaluation"has been successfully verified across the codebase. It is consistently implemented in the following files:
packages/graphql/src/public/client.jsonpackages/graphql/src/public/server.jsonpackages/graphql/src/ops.tspackages/graphql/src/graphql/ops/QGetPreviousStackEvaluation.graphqlapps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsxThis addition aligns with the project's objective to ensure that each element stack in microlearning can only be submitted once by retrieving previous evaluations. No issues were found with its implementation.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of GetPreviousStackEvaluation in the codebase # Check for any direct usage of the new operation echo "Checking for direct usage of GetPreviousStackEvaluation:" rg --type typescript --type javascript "GetPreviousStackEvaluation" # Check for any new or modified GraphQL queries that might be using this operation echo "Checking for GraphQL queries potentially using GetPreviousStackEvaluation:" rg --type graphql "GetPreviousStackEvaluation"Length of output: 463
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of GetPreviousStackEvaluation in the codebase # Check for any direct usage of the new operation across all files echo "Checking for direct usage of GetPreviousStackEvaluation in all files:" rg "GetPreviousStackEvaluation" # Check for any new or modified GraphQL queries that might be using this operation echo "Checking for GraphQL queries potentially using GetPreviousStackEvaluation in .graphql files:" rg "GetPreviousStackEvaluation" --glob "*.graphql" echo "Checking for GraphQL queries potentially using GetPreviousStackEvaluation in .gql files:" rg "GetPreviousStackEvaluation" --glob "*.gql"Length of output: 5626
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Comprehensive verification of GetPreviousStackEvaluation usage in the codebase # Search for direct usage in all files without type restrictions echo "Searching for direct usage of GetPreviousStackEvaluation in all files with context:" rg "GetPreviousStackEvaluation" -C 2 # Specifically search in GraphQL-related directories if they exist echo "Searching in GraphQL directories for GetPreviousStackEvaluation usage:" fd "graphql" | xargs rg "GetPreviousStackEvaluation" -C 2 # Search for any import or export statements related to GetPreviousStackEvaluation echo "Searching for import/export statements of GetPreviousStackEvaluation:" rg "(import|export).*GetPreviousStackEvaluation" # Search for any documentation or comments referencing GetPreviousStackEvaluation echo "Searching for comments or documentation referencing GetPreviousStackEvaluation:" rg "//.*GetPreviousStackEvaluation" rg "/\*.*GetPreviousStackEvaluation.*\*/"Length of output: 56884
packages/graphql/src/schema/query.ts (1)
282-291: Verify authentication requirements and add a comment explaining the query's purpose.The new
getPreviousStackEvaluationquery is well-implemented and aligns with the PR objective of ensuring that each element stack in microlearning can only be submitted once. However, there are two points to consider:
Authentication: Unlike some other queries in this file, this query is not marked with any authentication or role requirements (e.g.,
asUser,asParticipant). Please verify if this is intentional or if authentication should be added.Documentation: Consider adding a comment above the query to explain its purpose and how it relates to the "submit once" requirement. This will help future developers understand the query's role in the system.
Here's a script to check for other unauthenticated queries in the file:
If this query should indeed be authenticated, consider adding the appropriate authentication wrapper (e.g.,
asParticipant.fieldorasUser.field).packages/graphql/src/public/schema.graphql (2)
640-644: LGTM! These additions enhance theInstanceEvaluationtype.The new fields
correctness: FloatandlastResponse: Jsonare well-chosen additions to theInstanceEvaluationtype. They provide valuable information:
correctnessallows for a nuanced representation of the evaluation result, potentially as a percentage or score.lastResponseusing theJsontype offers flexibility in storing various response formats for different question types.These additions support the PR objective of ensuring each element stack can only be submitted once by providing a way to store and reference the last submission.
Line range hint
640-1072: Summary: Changes effectively support the PR objectiveThe modifications to the GraphQL schema successfully address the PR objective of ensuring that each element stack can only be submitted once. The additions to the
InstanceEvaluationtype provide the necessary data structure to store submission results, while the newgetPreviousStackEvaluationquery method allows for retrieval of previous evaluations.These changes work together to create a robust system for tracking and limiting submissions:
- The
correctnessandlastResponsefields inInstanceEvaluationstore the results of each submission.- The
getPreviousStackEvaluationmethod allows the system to check if a stack has been previously submitted before allowing a new submission.Overall, these changes are well-implemented and should effectively meet the requirements of the PR.
packages/graphql/src/public/server.json (2)
Line range hint
128-164: LGTM! New query added to retrieve previous stack evaluations.The new
GetPreviousStackEvaluationquery is well-structured and aligns with the PR objective. It provides a way to retrieve previous evaluations for a specific stack, which is crucial for ensuring that each element stack in microlearning can only be submitted once. The query takes astackIdas input and returns comprehensive evaluation data, including status, score, and detailed information about each evaluation.
Line range hint
128-164: Verify implementation and usage of the new queryWhile the new
GetPreviousStackEvaluationquery is well-defined, please ensure that:
- The frontend code is updated to use this new query where appropriate.
- Any caching mechanisms are adjusted to handle this new query correctly.
- The backend resolvers are implemented to support this new query.
These steps will ensure full integration of the new functionality into the system.
To confirm the proper implementation and usage of the new query, you can run the following script:
This script will search for references to the new query in frontend code, backend resolvers, and cache configurations. Review the output to ensure proper integration.
packages/graphql/src/ops.ts (2)
708-712: LGTM! New fields enhance evaluation capabilities.The addition of
correctnessandlastResponsefields to theInstanceEvaluationtype improves the evaluation process. These fields will likely be used to track the accuracy of responses and store the most recent submission, which aligns with the PR objective of ensuring each element stack can only be submitted once.
1801-1801: LGTM! New query supports the PR objective.The addition of the
getPreviousStackEvaluationquery is crucial for implementing the "submit once" functionality. This query will allow the system to retrieve the previous evaluation for a stack, enabling the enforcement of the single submission rule.packages/graphql/src/ops.schema.json (2)
Line range hint
6940-16511: Summary: Changes align well with PR objectivesThe additions to the schema (correctness, lastResponse, and getPreviousStackEvaluation) provide the necessary structure to track and retrieve previous stack submissions and evaluations. These changes support the PR objective of ensuring that each element stack in microlearning can only be submitted once.
The new fields allow for storing the correctness of a submission and the last response, while the new method enables retrieving previous evaluations. This combination should facilitate checking whether a stack has been previously submitted and preventing duplicate submissions.
16483-16511: LGTM. Consider adding a description and verify 'StackFeedback' type.The new 'getPreviousStackEvaluation' method is correctly defined with appropriate argument and return types. However, adding a description would improve the schema's self-documentation.
Consider adding a description to clarify the purpose of the 'getPreviousStackEvaluation' method. For example:
{ "name": "getPreviousStackEvaluation", - "description": null, + "description": "Retrieves the previous evaluation feedback for a specific stack element.", "args": [ { "name": "stackId", - "description": null, + "description": "The unique identifier of the stack element.", "type": { "kind": "NON_NULL", "name": null, "ofType": { "kind": "SCALAR", "name": "Int", "ofType": null } }, "defaultValue": null, "isDeprecated": false, "deprecationReason": null } ], "type": { "kind": "OBJECT", "name": "StackFeedback", "ofType": null }, "isDeprecated": false, "deprecationReason": null },Please verify that the 'StackFeedback' type is correctly defined elsewhere in the schema. Run the following script to check its definition:
apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx (1)
102-112: Issue: Potential unnecessary query executionThe
useQueryhook is invoked conditionally based on!singleSubmission || !!stackStorage:skip: !singleSubmission || !!stackStorage,This means the query will be skipped if
singleSubmissionisfalseorstackStorageis defined. Ensure this logic aligns with the intended behavior, so that previous evaluations are fetched only when necessary.To confirm that the query is correctly skipped or executed, consider checking the network requests or logging the query execution.
packages/graphql/src/services/practiceQuizzes.ts (2)
71-76: Definition offlashcardResultMapis correct and appropriate.The mapping between
FlashcardCorrectnessandStackFeedbackStatusis accurately established.
2205-2206: Automate verification of combining evaluation logic using static analysis.To determine if the evaluation logic can be shared between
getPreviousStackEvaluationandrespondToElementStack, we can verify the similarity of their code structures.Run the following script to compare the evaluation logic in both functions:
This will list the occurrences of evaluation functions within both methods, helping identify shared logic that can be refactored.
klicker-uzh
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project |
klicker-uzh
|
| Branch Review |
answer-microlearning-once
|
| Run status |
|
| Run duration | 09m 54s |
| Commit |
|
| Committer | Julius Schlapbach |
| View all properties for this run ↗︎ | |
| Test results | |
|---|---|
Failures
|
0
|
Flaky
|
2
|
Pending
|
0
|
Skipped
|
0
|
Passing
|
44
|
| View all changes introduced in this branch ↗︎ | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx (1)
102-111: Consider extracting skip condition for improved readabilityThe useQuery hook implementation looks good. However, to improve readability, consider extracting the skip condition into a separate variable:
const shouldSkipQuery = !singleSubmission || !!stackStorage; const { data: evaluationData } = useQuery( GetPreviousStackEvaluationDocument, { skip: shouldSkipQuery, variables: { stackId: stack.id, }, } );This change would make the skip condition more explicit and easier to understand at a glance.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx (6 hunks)
Additional context used
Biome
apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx
[error] 145-145: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
[error] 165-165: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
[error] 386-386: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
Additional comments not posted (1)
apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx (1)
1-1: LGTM: Import statements and interface updatesThe new imports and the addition of the
singleSubmissionprop toElementStackPropsare consistent with the implementation of the single submission functionality.Also applies to: 6-7, 43-43, 58-58
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
packages/prisma/src/data/seedTEST.ts (1)
Line range hint
875-1144: Consider adding an explanatory comment for migrationIdOffset incrementsThe consistent pattern of incrementing
migrationIdOffsetvalues throughout the file suggests a deliberate reorganization of the ID space for seeded data. This approach likely helps prevent ID conflicts and provides clear separation between different types of seeded entities.To improve code maintainability and clarify the intent for future developers, consider adding a comment at the beginning of the
seedTestfunction explaining the reasoning behind these increments and the overall strategy for ID spacing in seeded data.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- packages/graphql/src/services/practiceQuizzes.ts (5 hunks)
- packages/prisma/src/data/seedTEST.ts (7 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/graphql/src/services/practiceQuizzes.ts
Additional comments not posted (7)
packages/prisma/src/data/seedTEST.ts (7)
Line range hint
875-881: LGTM: Increment of migrationIdOffsetThe increase of
migrationIdOffsetfrom 200 to 300 appears to be intentional and consistent with other changes in the file. This modification likely aims to prevent ID conflicts with other seeded data.
Line range hint
915-921: LGTM: Consistent increment of migrationIdOffsetThe increase of
migrationIdOffsetfrom 300 to 400 maintains consistency with the previous change. This modification ensures a clear separation between different sets of seeded data.
Line range hint
956-962: LGTM: Consistent pattern in migrationIdOffset incrementThe increase of
migrationIdOffsetfrom 400 to 500 continues the established pattern. This consistent approach to incrementing the offset values suggests a deliberate reorganization of the ID space for seeded data.
Line range hint
1009-1015: Verify the larger increment in migrationIdOffsetThe increase of
migrationIdOffsetfrom 300 to 600 represents a larger jump compared to previous increments. While this might be intentional to create a clear separation between practice quizzes and microlearning data, it's worth confirming that this larger increment is deliberate and doesn't cause any unintended consequences.Could you confirm that the larger increment (300 to 600) for the published microlearning is intentional? This ensures we maintain the desired ID spacing between different types of seeded data.
Line range hint
1054-1060: LGTM: Consistent larger increment for microlearning dataThe increase of
migrationIdOffsetfrom 400 to 700 for the future microlearning is consistent with the previous change for published microlearning (300 to 600). This pattern suggests a deliberate approach to spacing out IDs for different types of microlearning data.
Line range hint
1095-1101: LGTM: Maintained pattern in migrationIdOffset incrementsThe increase of
migrationIdOffsetfrom 500 to 800 for the past microlearning maintains the pattern of incrementing by 100 for each subsequent microlearning entry. This consistency reinforces the systematic reorganization of the ID space for seeded data.
Line range hint
1136-1144: LGTM: Consistent increment pattern maintained for special casesThe increase of
migrationIdOffsetfrom 600 to 900 for the past microlearning with no free text questions maintains the established pattern of incrementing by 100 for each microlearning entry. It's good to see that this consistency is maintained even for special cases, ensuring a uniform approach to ID spacing across different types of seeded data.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
cypress/cypress/e2e/G-microlearning-workflow.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-1000: Consider updating similar test cases for consistency.While the changes made are effective for this specific test case, it might be beneficial to review other similar test cases within this file. Ensuring consistency across all microlearning workflow tests will help maintain the overall quality and reliability of the test suite.
Consider the following actions:
- Identify other test cases that involve answering questions in microlearning workflows.
- Apply similar changes to verify that previously answered questions are disabled and their answers are preserved.
- Update any relevant "continue" or "skip" actions in other test cases to align with the new behavior.
This will help ensure that all tests accurately reflect the new requirement of submitting each element stack only once.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx (6 hunks)
- cypress/cypress/e2e/G-microlearning-workflow.cy.ts (1 hunks)
Additional context used
Biome
apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx
[error] 151-151: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
[error] 171-171: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
[error] 393-393: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
Additional comments not posted (3)
apps/frontend-pwa/src/components/practiceQuiz/ElementStack.tsx (2)
1-1: LGTM: New imports and prop for single submission featureThe additions of the
useQueryimport,GetPreviousStackEvaluationDocument, and thesingleSubmissionprop are consistent with the implementation of the single submission feature. These changes provide the necessary building blocks for the new functionality.Also applies to: 6-6, 43-43, 58-58
102-111: LGTM: Efficient implementation of useQuery hookThe
useQueryhook is well-implemented, fetching previous stack evaluation data only when necessary. The use of theskipoption prevents unnecessary network requests when single submission is not enabled or when stack storage already exists. This approach optimizes performance and reduces unnecessary data fetching.cypress/cypress/e2e/G-microlearning-workflow.cy.ts (1)
307-312: LGTM! Changes align with PR objective.These modifications effectively implement the PR objective of ensuring that each element stack in microlearning can only be submitted once. The test now:
- Verifies that a previously answered question is disabled.
- Checks that the free text input retains its previous answer.
- Skips the already answered question by clicking the continue button.
These changes improve the test's ability to validate the desired behavior of the microlearning workflow.
klicker-uzh
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project |
klicker-uzh
|
| Branch Review |
v3
|
| Run status |
|
| Run duration | 09m 19s |
| Commit |
|
| Committer | Julius Schlapbach |
| View all properties for this run ↗︎ | |
| Test results | |
|---|---|
|
Failures
|
0
|
|
Flaky
|
1
|
|
Pending
|
0
|
|
Skipped
|
0
|
|
Passing
|
44
|
| View all changes introduced in this branch ↗︎ | |
No description provided.