chore: add script to clean up question responses, response details and element instances #4347
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 pull request introduces significant updates to the management of responses in a database, specifically targeting element instances such as Changes
Possibly related PRs
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
🔇 Additional comments (3)_run_app_dependencies_macos.sh (1)
Running two PostgreSQL instances simultaneously could impact system resources. Please ensure:
✅ Verification successfulPort and volume configurations for PostgreSQL services are properly configured Based on the docker-compose.yml content:
🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify Docker service configurations for PostgreSQL instances
# Test: Check if both postgres services are properly configured
echo "Checking Docker Compose configuration..."
docker compose config | grep -A 10 'service: postgres\|service: postgres_diff'
# Test: Verify port mappings
echo "Checking port mappings..."
docker compose config | grep -A 2 'ports:'
Length of output: 424 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Let's try to find and examine the Docker Compose configuration file directly
echo "Looking for docker-compose files..."
fd -t f -e yml -e yaml compose
fd -t f -e yml -e yaml docker
echo "Checking content of any found compose files..."
for file in $(fd -t f -e yml -e yaml 'compose|docker'); do
echo "=== Content of $file ==="
cat "$file"
done
Length of output: 18675 util/_restore-prod.sh (1)
The script should verify that the PostgreSQL services are actually running on the specified ports before attempting restore. docker-compose.yml (1)
The volume configuration follows the existing pattern and is correctly defined. 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.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 9
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
packages/graphql/src/services/practiceQuizzes.ts (1)
Line range hint
500-544: Consider adding algorithm documentation.The implementation correctly follows the SuperMemo-2 spaced repetition algorithm with proper input validation and calculations. However, it would benefit from documentation explaining the algorithm's parameters and formulas.
Add JSDoc comments explaining the algorithm:
+/** + * Updates spaced repetition parameters using the SuperMemo-2 algorithm. + * @see https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/english/ol/sm2 + * @param {Object} params - Input parameters + * @param {number} params.eFactor - Easiness factor (minimum 1.3) + * @param {number} params.interval - Current interval in days + * @param {number} params.streak - Current streak of correct answers + * @param {number} params.grade - Performance grade (0 to 1) + * @returns {SpacedRepetitionResult} Updated spaced repetition parameters + */ export function updateSpacedRepetition({ eFactor, interval, streak, grade, }: {packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
709-709: Address the TODO: Replace with helper function once availableThere is a TODO comment indicating that this code should be replaced with a helper function once available. This might improve code maintainability and reduce duplication.
Would you like assistance in implementing this helper function or opening a new GitHub issue to track this task?
910-910: Address the TODO: Replace with helper function once availableSimilar to earlier, there's a TODO to replace this code with a helper function when it's available. Implementing this will enhance consistency across the codebase.
Would you like assistance in implementing this helper function or opening a new GitHub issue to track this task?
1138-1138: Address the TODO: Replace with helper function once availableAgain, there's a TODO comment to use a helper function when it's available. Addressing this will help streamline the code.
Would you like assistance in implementing this helper function or opening a new GitHub issue to track this task?
35-35: Address the TODO: Update script with helper functions from the stacks serviceThere's a TODO comment indicating that this script should be updated with helper functions from the stacks service once they become available. Doing so may enhance code reuse and maintainability.
Would you like assistance in integrating these helper functions or opening a new GitHub issue to track this task?
🛑 Comments failed to post (9)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (9)
816-820:
⚠️ Potential issuePossible logical error: Incorrect variable used in condition
In the ternary operator assigning
lastResponseCorrectness, you're checkingfirstCorrect === 0instead oflastCorrect === 0. This seems incorrect since you're evaluatinglastCorrect.Apply this diff to fix the condition:
lastResponseCorrectness = lastCorrect === 1 ? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT - : firstCorrect === 0 + : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL averageTimeSpent =
113-117:
⚠️ Potential issueType error: Incorrectly treating
totalXpAwardedas a dateIn the update condition,
totalXpAwardedis a number representing the total XP awarded, but the code is treating it as a date by usingdayjsto compare them. This will lead to incorrect comparisons.Apply this diff to fix the comparison:
updateReq = updateReq || - dayjs(response.totalXpAwarded).isSame(dayjs(newValues.totalXpAwarded)) + response.totalXpAwarded !== newValues.totalXpAwarded📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.updateReq = updateReq || response.totalPointsAwarded !== newValues.totalPointsAwarded updateReq = updateReq || response.totalXpAwarded !== newValues.totalXpAwarded
1043-1048:
⚠️ Potential issuePossible logical error: Incorrect variable used in condition
Similarly, the same issue occurs here. Ensure you are checking
lastCorrectinstead offirstCorrect.Apply this diff to fix the condition:
lastResponseCorrectness = lastCorrect === 1 ? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT - : firstCorrect === 0 + : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.lastCorrect === 1 ? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL averageTimeSpent =
614-619:
⚠️ Potential issuePossible logical error: Incorrect variable used in condition
In the ternary operator assigning
lastResponseCorrectness, you're checkingfirstCorrect === 0instead oflastCorrect === 0. This seems incorrect since you're evaluatinglastCorrect.Apply this diff to fix the condition:
lastResponseCorrectness = lastCorrect === 1 ? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT - : firstCorrect === 0 + : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.lastCorrect === 1 ? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL averageTimeSpent =
711-717: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid using spread syntax on accumulators in reduce functions
Using the spread operator on accumulators within a
reducefunction leads toO(n^2)time complexity and can cause performance issues with large datasets. Consider mutating the accumulator object directly instead.Apply this diff to refactor the code:
- acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices - ) + detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix]! += 1; + });📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { acc.aggResponses.choices[ix]! += 1; });🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 713-713: 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)
1039-1042:
⚠️ Potential issuePossible logical error: Incorrect variable used in condition
In the ternary operator assigning
lastResponseCorrectness, you're checkingfirstCorrect === 0instead oflastCorrect === 0. This seems incorrect since you're evaluatinglastCorrect.Apply this diff to fix the condition:
lastResponseCorrectness = lastCorrect === 1 ? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT - : firstCorrect === 0 + : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIALCommittable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
721-727: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid using spread syntax on accumulators in reduce functions
Using the spread operator on accumulators within a
reducefunction leads toO(n^2)time complexity and can cause performance issues with large datasets. Consider mutating the accumulator object directly instead.Apply this diff to refactor the code:
- instanceResults.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - (instanceResults as ElementResultsChoices).choices - ) + detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + (instanceResults as ElementResultsChoices).choices[ix]! += 1; + });📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { (instanceResults as ElementResultsChoices).choices[ix]! += 1; });🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 723-723: 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)
1297-1312:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect logic when updating instance last response counts
Similarly, the assignments for
instanceLastCorrectCount,instanceLastPartialCorrectCount, andinstanceLastWrongCountmay not update the counts correctly due to operator precedence and logical errors. Adjust the logic to increment counts based on the correctness of the last response.Apply this diff to fix the logic:
-instanceLastCorrectCount = - (instanceLastCorrectCount ?? 0) + lastResponseCorrectness! === - ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT - ? 1 - : 0 +instanceLastCorrectCount = + (instanceLastCorrectCount ?? 0) + + (lastResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT ? 1 : 0); -instanceLastPartialCorrectCount = - (instanceLastPartialCorrectCount ?? 0) + lastResponseCorrectness! === - ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL - ? 1 - : 0 +instanceLastPartialCorrectCount = + (instanceLastPartialCorrectCount ?? 0) + + (lastResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL ? 1 : 0); -instanceLastWrongCount = - (instanceLastWrongCount ?? 0) + lastResponseCorrectness! === - ResponseCorrectness.WRONG - ? 1 - : 0 +instanceLastWrongCount = + (instanceLastWrongCount ?? 0) + + (lastResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.WRONG ? 1 : 0);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.instanceLastCorrectCount = (instanceLastCorrectCount ?? 0) + (lastResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT ? 1 : 0); instanceLastPartialCorrectCount = (instanceLastPartialCorrectCount ?? 0) + (lastResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL ? 1 : 0); instanceLastWrongCount = (instanceLastWrongCount ?? 0) + (lastResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.WRONG ? 1 : 0); }
1282-1296:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect logic when updating instance first response counts
The current assignments for
instanceFirstCorrectCount,instanceFirstPartialCorrectCount, andinstanceFirstWrongCountmay not update the counts correctly due to operator precedence and logical errors. It seems the intent is to increment the counts based on the correctness of the first response.Apply this diff to fix the logic:
-instanceFirstCorrectCount = - (instanceFirstCorrectCount ?? 0) + firstResponseCorrectness! === - ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT - ? 1 - : 0 +instanceFirstCorrectCount = + (instanceFirstCorrectCount ?? 0) + + (firstResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT ? 1 : 0); -instanceFirstPartialCorrectCount = - (instanceFirstPartialCorrectCount ?? 0) + firstResponseCorrectness! === - ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL - ? 1 - : 0 +instanceFirstPartialCorrectCount = + (instanceFirstPartialCorrectCount ?? 0) + + (firstResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL ? 1 : 0); -instanceFirstWrongCount = - (instanceFirstWrongCount ?? 0) + firstResponseCorrectness! === - ResponseCorrectness.WRONG - ? 1 - : 0 +instanceFirstWrongCount = + (instanceFirstWrongCount ?? 0) + + (firstResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.WRONG ? 1 : 0);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.instanceFirstCorrectCount = (instanceFirstCorrectCount ?? 0) + (firstResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT ? 1 : 0); instanceFirstPartialCorrectCount = (instanceFirstPartialCorrectCount ?? 0) + (firstResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL ? 1 : 0); instanceFirstWrongCount = (instanceFirstWrongCount ?? 0) + (firstResponseCorrectness === ResponseCorrectness.WRONG ? 1 : 0);
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🛑 Comments failed to post (5)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (5)
128-128:
⚠️ Potential issueFix incorrect date comparison logic.
The
isSamemethod is used incorrectly for comparing dates with undefined values. WhennewValuesdate is undefined, this will cause unexpected behavior.Apply this fix to all date comparisons:
- dayjs(response.totalXpAwarded).isSame(dayjs(newValues.totalXpAwarded)) + response.totalXpAwarded?.getTime() !== newValues.totalXpAwarded?.getTime()This pattern should be applied to all date comparisons in the function.
Also applies to: 133-133, 136-136, 139-139, 145-145, 150-151, 156-156, 160-160
373-373: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using batched processing for better memory management.
The script processes all instances at once, which could be memory intensive for large datasets. Consider implementing batched processing.
- const instances = await prisma.elementInstance.findMany({ + async function* getInstances(batchSize = 100) { + let skip = 0 + while (true) { + const batch = await prisma.elementInstance.findMany({ + take: batchSize, + skip: skip, + // ... rest of the query + }) + if (batch.length === 0) break + yield batch + skip += batchSize + } + }Also applies to: 374-374, 375-375, 376-377, 378-378
746-752: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Optimize reducer performance by avoiding spread operator.
Using spread operator in reducers leads to O(n²) time complexity as it creates a new object on each iteration.
- acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices - ) + for (const ix of detail.response.choices) { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 + }Also applies to: 756-762
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 748-748: 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)
948-949:
⚠️ Potential issueReplace MD5 with a more secure hashing algorithm.
MD5 is cryptographically broken and should not be used for hashing. Consider using a more secure algorithm like SHA-256.
- const MD5 = createHash('md5') + const SHA256 = createHash('sha256') - MD5.update(value) - const hashedValue = MD5.digest('hex') + SHA256.update(value) + const hashedValue = SHA256.digest('hex')Also applies to: 1176-1177
1373-1400: 💡 Codebase verification
⚠️ Potential issueEnable transaction support to ensure data consistency
The commented transaction code handles multiple related database updates (
questionResponseDetail,questionResponse, andelementInstance). Without transactions, if any of these updates fail, it could leave the database in an inconsistent state. The codebase consistently uses transactions for similar multi-operation scenarios, as evidenced by the numerous examples found in other files.
- Enable the commented transaction code at lines 1373-1400 to maintain data consistency with other parts of the codebase
- This ensures atomicity of the updates: either all updates succeed or none do
🔗 Analysis chain
Enable transaction support to ensure data consistency.
The transaction code is commented out with a TODO. This could lead to inconsistent data if the script fails mid-execution.
Let's verify the impact of enabling transactions:
Let me analyze the search results for transaction usage in the codebase. I can see that transactions are consistently used across the codebase for maintaining data consistency, particularly in scenarios involving multiple database operations. Let me verify the specific file context with another search.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential data inconsistencies by looking for orphaned or mismatched records # Test: Search for related database operations. Expect: Operations should be within transactions. rg -A 5 'prisma\.\$transaction'Length of output: 22506
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the specific file for other database operations rg -A 5 'prisma\.' packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.tsLength of output: 918
klicker-uzh
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project |
klicker-uzh
|
| Branch Review |
responses-cleanup
|
| Run status |
|
| Run duration | 11m 25s |
| Commit |
|
| Committer | Julius Schlapbach |
| View all properties for this run ↗︎ | |
| Test results | |
|---|---|
Failures
|
0
|
Flaky
|
0
|
Pending
|
0
|
Skipped
|
0
|
Passing
|
140
|
| View all changes introduced in this branch ↗︎ | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (3)
35-41: Consider addressing the TODO comment and improving constant names.The TODO comment suggests missing helper functions from the stacks service. Consider:
- Creating a tracking issue for implementing these helper functions
- Making constant names more descriptive (e.g.,
DEFAULT_POINTS_PER_INSTANCE,POINTS_AWARD_EXPIRY_DAYS)Would you like me to help create a GitHub issue to track the implementation of these helper functions?
43-97: Improve type safety and reusability in computeDetailUpdate.Consider these improvements:
- Replace
any[]with proper type for detailUpdates- Extract the comparison logic into a reusable utility
- Make verbose logging configurable through environment variables
-const detailUpdates: any[] = [] +type DetailUpdate = { + where: { id: string } + data: { + score: number + pointsAwarded: number + xpAwarded: number + timeSpent: number + } +} +const detailUpdates: DetailUpdate[] = []
399-402: Add documentation for leaderboard limitation.The comment about leaderboard entries should be moved to function documentation. Consider adding a @limitation JSDoc tag to properly document this constraint.
-// ! CAUTION: This script does not update the leaderboard entries of the participants -// ? This script will iterate through all element instances and -// ? update the question responses and question response details async function run() { + /** + * Updates question responses and response details for all element instances + * @limitation This script does not update the leaderboard entries of the participants + */
🛑 Comments failed to post (4)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
1448-1476:
⚠️ Potential issueUncomment and improve transaction code.
The commented transaction code should be:
- Uncommented and properly implemented
- Split into smaller batches to avoid memory issues
- Include error handling and rollback logic
Would you like me to help implement a proper batched transaction approach with error handling?
817-824:
⚠️ Potential issueFix O(n²) performance issue with spread operators in reducers.
The use of spread operators in reducers can lead to quadratic time complexity. Consider using Object.assign or direct property assignment instead.
-acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices -) +acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( + (acc, ix) => { + acc[ix] = (acc[ix] || 0) + 1 + return acc + }, + { ...acc.aggResponses.choices } +)Also applies to: 827-834
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 819-819: 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)
1-1479: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider breaking down this script into smaller modules.
The script is quite complex and handles multiple responsibilities. Consider:
- Splitting element type handlers into separate modules
- Creating a dedicated service for response aggregation
- Implementing proper logging and monitoring
- Adding progress tracking for long-running operations
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 819-819: 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] 829-829: 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)
403-405:
⚠️ Potential issueFix MD5 hash reuse issue.
The MD5 hash instance is created once and reused, which could lead to incorrect hashes. The hash should be reset or recreated for each value.
-const MD5 = createHash('md5') let counter = 0 +function hashValue(value: string): string { + return createHash('md5').update(value).digest('hex') +}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
35-36: TODO comments need to be addressed.There are two TODO comments that need attention:
- Line 35: Helper functions from the stacks service
- Line 509-511: Leaderboard entries update limitation
Would you like me to help create GitHub issues to track these TODOs? I can also assist in implementing the helper functions from the stacks service.
Also applies to: 509-511
537-538: Improve logging with more context.The current logging is basic and could be improved to provide more context for debugging.
- console.log('PROCESSING INSTANCE', counter, 'OF', instances.length) + console.log( + `Processing instance ${counter}/${instances.length} (id: ${instance.id}, type: ${instance.type})` + )
41-41: Consider environment-based verbose logging.The verbose flag is hardcoded, which could lead to unnecessary logging in production.
- const verbose = true + const verbose = process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development' || process.env.DEBUG === 'true'
518-533: Consider pagination for large datasets.The script fetches all instances at once, which could cause memory issues with large datasets.
Consider implementing pagination using Prisma's cursor-based pagination:
const batchSize = 100 let cursor = null while (true) { const batch = await prisma.elementInstance.findMany({ take: batchSize, skip: cursor ? 1 : 0, cursor: cursor ? { id: cursor } : undefined, where: { type: { in: [ElementInstanceType.PRACTICE_QUIZ, ElementInstanceType.MICROLEARNING], }, }, include: { responses: { include: { participant: true, participation: true } }, detailResponses: { include: { participant: true } }, element: true, instanceStatistics: true, }, }) if (batch.length === 0) break cursor = batch[batch.length - 1].id // Process batch... }
🛑 Comments failed to post (3)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (3)
933-942:
⚠️ Potential issuePerformance: O(n²) complexity in reducers.
The use of spread operators in reducers creates quadratic time complexity. This could be problematic with large datasets.
Replace spread operators with direct property assignments:
- acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices - ) + detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 + })Also applies to: 945-952
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 937-937: 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)
514-515:
⚠️ Potential issueMD5 hash reuse issue across iterations.
The MD5 hash instance is created once and reused across iterations, which could lead to incorrect hashes.
Move the hash creation inside the iteration to ensure a fresh hash for each value:
- const MD5 = createHash('md5') let counter = 0 // Inside the loops where MD5 is used: + const MD5 = createHash('md5') MD5.update(value)Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
1548-1575:
⚠️ Potential issueCommented transaction code needs review.
The transaction code is commented out with a TODO. This means the script currently doesn't apply any updates to the database.
Either:
- Uncomment and test the transaction code if it's ready for use
- Add error handling and validation before uncommenting
- Document why the transaction code is commented out if it's intentional
The transaction should be wrapped in try-catch for proper error handling:
+ try { if ( detailUpdates.length > 0 || responseUpdates.length > 0 || instanceUpdates.length > 0 ) { await prisma.$transaction([ ...detailUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponseDetail.update({ where: { id: update.id }, data: update.data, }) ), ...responseUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponse.update({ where: { id: update.id }, data: update.data, }) ), ...instanceUpdates.map((update) => prisma.elementInstance.update({ where: { id: update.id }, data: update.data, }) ), ]) } + } catch (error) { + console.error('Transaction failed:', error) + throw error + }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
590-593: Add more detailed documentation about the script's purpose and limitations.The current comment is quite brief. Consider adding more comprehensive documentation that includes:
- The purpose and scope of the script
- Prerequisites for running the script
- Expected outcomes and side effects
- Known limitations (beyond just the leaderboard entries)
-// ! CAUTION: This script does not update the leaderboard entries of the participants -// ? This script will iterate through all element instances and -// ? update the question responses and question response details +/** + * Cleanup Script for Question Responses + * + * Purpose: + * This script iterates through all element instances and updates question responses + * and response details to ensure data consistency and accuracy. + * + * Prerequisites: + * - Database connection with appropriate permissions + * - No active transactions on affected tables + * + * Effects: + * - Updates question response details + * - Updates question responses + * - Updates element instance statistics + * + * Limitations: + * - Does not update leaderboard entries + * - Transaction mode is currently disabled (see TODO comment) + * - High memory usage for large datasets + */
1038-1047: Replace TODO comments with helper functions.There are multiple TODO comments about replacing code with helper functions. This is important for code maintainability and reusability.
Would you like me to help create these helper functions for:
- Aggregating responses for choice-based questions
- Aggregating responses for numerical questions
- Aggregating responses for free-text questions
These helper functions would improve code maintainability and reduce duplication.
Also applies to: 1244-1267, 1477-1500
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1042-1042: 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)
669-671: Initialize statistics variables with appropriate types.The statistics variables are initialized with undefined values, which could lead to type-safety issues.
-let instanceAverageTimeSpent: number | undefined = undefined +let instanceAverageTimeSpent = 0
616-619: Improve progress logging.The current progress logging is basic. Consider adding more detailed progress information.
-console.log('PROCESSING INSTANCE', counter, 'OF', instances.length) +const progress = Math.round((counter / instances.length) * 100) +console.log( + `Processing instance ${counter}/${instances.length} (${progress}%) - ID: ${instance.id}` +) +if (verbose) { + console.log(`Type: ${instance.type}, Responses: ${instance.responses.length}`) +}
🛑 Comments failed to post (3)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (3)
1041-1044:
⚠️ Potential issueFix O(n²) complexity in spread operations.
The static analysis tool correctly identified performance issues with spread operators in reducers. This can lead to quadratic time complexity as the array grows.
-acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices -) +// Use direct property assignment instead of spread +detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 +})Also applies to: 1051-1054
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1042-1042: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
594-595: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve resource management for database connection and MD5 hash.
The PrismaClient and MD5 hash are created but never properly cleaned up.
-const prisma = new PrismaClient() -const MD5 = createHash('md5') +let prisma: PrismaClient +try { + prisma = new PrismaClient() + // ... rest of the code +} finally { + await prisma.$disconnect() +} +// Move MD5 hash creation inside the loop where it's used +const MD5 = createHash('md5')Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
711-720: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve average time calculation to handle potential numeric overflow.
The current implementation might have issues with numeric overflow for large values.
-const res = details.reduce<{ avgTime: number; counter: number }>( - (acc, detail) => { - acc.avgTime = Math.floor( - (acc.avgTime * acc.counter + detail.timeSpent) / (acc.counter + 1) - ) - acc.counter += 1 - return acc - }, - { avgTime: 0, counter: 0 } -) +const res = details.reduce<{ totalTime: number; counter: number }>( + (acc, detail) => { + acc.totalTime += detail.timeSpent + acc.counter += 1 + return acc + }, + { totalTime: 0, counter: 0 } +) +const averageTimeSpent = Math.floor(res.totalTime / res.counter)📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const res = details.reduce<{ totalTime: number; counter: number }>( (acc, detail) => { acc.totalTime += detail.timeSpent acc.counter += 1 return acc }, { totalTime: 0, counter: 0 } ) const averageTimeSpent = Math.floor(res.totalTime / res.counter)
…ng inactive participation) and participation is active now
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
43-138: Consider memoizing the update computation for better performance.The
computeDetailUpdatefunction performs multiple comparisons and object creation operations. For large datasets, this could impact performance.Consider memoizing the computation using a cache key based on the input parameters:
+const detailUpdateCache = new Map(); + function computeDetailUpdate({ detail, newValues, }: { detail: QuestionResponseDetail newValues: { score: number pointsAwarded: number | undefined xpAwarded: number timeSpent: number } }) { + const cacheKey = `${detail.id}-${JSON.stringify(newValues)}`; + if (detailUpdateCache.has(cacheKey)) { + return detailUpdateCache.get(cacheKey); + } // ... rest of the function ... + const result = updateReq ? { + where: { id: detail.id }, + data: { /* ... */ } + } : undefined; + detailUpdateCache.set(cacheKey, result); + return result; }
594-597: Add more detailed documentation for the script's limitations.The current comment about leaderboard entries is helpful, but more context about other limitations would be valuable.
Consider expanding the documentation:
-// ! CAUTION: This script does not update the leaderboard entries of the participants -// ? This script will iterate through all element instances and -// ? update the question responses and question response details +/** + * CAUTION: This script has the following limitations: + * 1. Does not update leaderboard entries of participants + * 2. Requires manual transaction execution (see TODO below) + * 3. Memory usage scales with the number of responses + * + * This script iterates through all element instances and updates: + * - Question responses + * - Question response details + * - Instance statistics + */
35-39: Consider making constants configurable through environment variables.The hardcoded constants for points and timeframes should be configurable.
Use environment variables with defaults:
+const { + POINTS_PER_INSTANCE = 10, + POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 6, + XP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 1, +} = process.env; + -const POINTS_PER_INSTANCE = 10 -const POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 6 -const XP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 1
1584-1588: Improve error handling for unsupported element types.The current error message could be more informative.
Enhance the error handling:
-throw new Error( - `Unsupported element type or missing results for element instance ${instance.id} with type ${instance.elementType}` -) +const supportedTypes = [ + ElementType.CONTENT, + ElementType.FLASHCARD, + ElementType.SC, + ElementType.MC, + ElementType.KPRIM, + ElementType.NUMERICAL, + ElementType.FREE_TEXT, +]; +throw new Error( + `Unsupported element type or missing results for element instance ${instance.id}.\n` + + `Type: ${instance.elementType}\n` + + `Supported types: ${supportedTypes.join(', ')}` +);
🛑 Comments failed to post (3)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (3)
1676-1703:
⚠️ Potential issueUncomment and improve the transaction handling.
The commented-out transaction code is crucial for data consistency but needs improvement.
Consider these improvements:
- Add error handling and rollback
- Process in smaller batches to avoid memory issues
- Add logging for debugging
+const BATCH_SIZE = 100; + +async function processBatch( + prisma: PrismaClient, + detailUpdates: any[], + responseUpdates: any[], + instanceUpdates: any[] +) { + try { + await prisma.$transaction([ + ...detailUpdates.map((update) => + prisma.questionResponseDetail.update({ + where: { id: update.id }, + data: update.data, + }) + ), + ...responseUpdates.map((update) => + prisma.questionResponse.update({ + where: { id: update.id }, + data: update.data, + }) + ), + ...instanceUpdates.map((update) => + prisma.elementInstance.update({ + where: { id: update.id }, + data: update.data, + }) + ), + ]); + console.log(`Successfully processed batch of ${detailUpdates.length} updates`); + } catch (error) { + console.error('Error processing batch:', error); + throw error; + } +}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
598-601:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd cleanup for database connection.
The PrismaClient connection should be properly closed after use.
Add proper cleanup:
async function run() { const prisma = new PrismaClient() + try { const MD5 = createHash('md5') let counter = 0 + // ... rest of the function + } finally { + await prisma.$disconnect() + } }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
1042-1060:
⚠️ Potential issueFix O(n²) complexity in response aggregation.
The spread operator in the reducer accumulator is causing quadratic time complexity, as flagged by static analysis.
Replace spread operations with direct property updates:
-acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices -) +detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1; +});Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1046-1046: 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] 1056-1056: 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)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (5)
35-35: TODO comment needs to be addressed before deployment.The TODO comment indicates that helper functions from the stacks service will be available in the future. This dependency should be resolved before deploying to production.
Would you like me to help create a GitHub issue to track this dependency on the stacks service helper functions?
594-594: Warning: Script does not update leaderboard entries.This limitation should be clearly documented in the README or deployment documentation to ensure administrators are aware of this gap when running the cleanup script.
Consider adding this warning to the documentation.
1043-1043: Multiple TODO comments about helper function replacement.There are multiple TODO comments about replacing code with helper functions once they become available. This technical debt should be tracked.
Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track the implementation of these helper functions? This would help ensure these TODOs don't get forgotten.
Also applies to: 1250-1250, 1482-1482
1677-1696: Consider batching database updates.The script processes all updates in a single transaction per instance. With large datasets, this could lead to long-running transactions.
Consider:
- Batching updates across multiple instances
- Adding a batch size configuration
- Implementing retry logic for failed batches
- Adding progress logging for long-running operations
715-724: Potential precision loss in average calculation.Using
Math.floorin average calculations could lead to precision loss, especially with small numbers.Consider keeping the precision until the final display:
-acc.avgTime = Math.floor( - (acc.avgTime * acc.counter + detail.timeSpent) / (acc.counter + 1) -) +acc.avgTime = (acc.avgTime * acc.counter + detail.timeSpent) / (acc.counter + 1)
🛑 Comments failed to post (5)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (5)
1047-1051:
⚠️ Potential issuePerformance: O(n²) complexity in reduce operations.
The spread operator usage in reducers creates O(n²) time complexity. This could impact performance with large datasets.
Replace spread operations with direct property assignments:
-acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices -) +detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 +})Also applies to: 1057-1061
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1047-1047: 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)
677-1651: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor: Extract participant response processing logic.
The participant response processing logic is quite long (975 lines) and handles multiple element types. This makes it hard to maintain and test.
Consider extracting the processing logic for each element type into separate functions:
processContentResponseprocessFlashcardResponseprocessChoiceResponseprocessNumericalResponseprocessFreeTextResponseThis would improve:
- Code maintainability
- Testability
- Readability
- Reusability
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1047-1047: 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] 1057-1057: 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)
1699-1699: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for the script execution.
The script lacks error handling for the main execution.
Wrap the execution in a try-catch block:
-await run() +try { + await run() + console.log('Cleanup completed successfully') +} catch (error) { + console.error('Cleanup failed:', error) + process.exit(1) +}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.try { await run() console.log('Cleanup completed successfully') } catch (error) { console.error('Cleanup failed:', error) process.exit(1) }
944-947:
⚠️ Potential issueBug: Incorrect variable used in condition.
The lastResponseCorrectness calculation uses
firstCorrectinstead oflastCorrectin the condition.Fix the condition:
- : firstCorrect === 0 + : lastCorrect === 0📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL
599-600:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity: MD5 hash reuse across iterations.
The MD5 hash object is created once and reused across iterations. This could lead to incorrect hashing as the internal state is not reset.
Move the hash creation inside the iteration where it's used:
-const MD5 = createHash('md5') +let counter = 0 // Inside the loops where MD5 is used: +const MD5 = createHash('md5') MD5.update(value)Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
43-138: Consider refactoring verbose logging and update checks.The function could benefit from some structural improvements:
- Extract verbose logging into a separate helper function to improve readability
- Consider using an array of field comparisons to reduce repetition in update checks
+function logDetailDifferences(detail: QuestionResponseDetail, newValues: any, field: string) { + if (verbose) { + console.log(`${field} not identical:`, detail[field], newValues[field]) + } +} function computeDetailUpdate({...}) { let updateReq = false - if (verbose) { - if (typeof newValues.score !== 'undefined' && detail.score !== newValues.score) { - console.log('Score not identical:', detail.score, newValues.score) - } - // ... more verbose logging - } + const fieldComparisons = [ + { field: 'score', condition: () => typeof newValues.score !== 'undefined' && detail.score !== newValues.score }, + // ... add other fields + ] + + fieldComparisons.forEach(({ field, condition }) => { + if (condition()) { + logDetailDifferences(detail, newValues, field) + updateReq = true + } + })
594-597: Document leaderboard limitation in code comments.The comment about leaderboard entries not being updated should be expanded to explain why and what the implications are.
-// ! CAUTION: This script does not update the leaderboard entries of the participants +/** + * CAUTION: This script does not update the leaderboard entries of the participants. + * This limitation exists because: + * 1. Leaderboard updates require complex point recalculations + * 2. Could lead to inconsistencies with historical data + * + * Impact: Leaderboard rankings may be temporarily incorrect until the next scheduled update. + */
1043-1044: Address TODO comments about helper functions.There are multiple TODO comments about replacing code with helper functions. This technical debt should be tracked and addressed.
Would you like me to:
- Create a new issue to track these TODOs?
- Help implement these helper functions?
Also applies to: 1250-1251, 1483-1484
737-1590: Consider implementing the Strategy pattern for element type handling.The current implementation uses a large if-else chain to handle different element types. This could be refactored using the Strategy pattern to make the code more maintainable and extensible.
Consider:
- Creating an interface for element type handlers
- Implementing separate handler classes for each element type
- Using a factory to create the appropriate handler
This would:
- Reduce code duplication
- Make it easier to add new element types
- Improve testability
- Make the code more modular
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1047-1047: 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] 1057-1057: 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)
🛑 Comments failed to post (3)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (3)
942-947:
⚠️ Potential issueFix incorrect comparison in lastResponseCorrectness assignment.
There's a bug in the comparison - it's using
firstCorrectinstead oflastCorrectin the else condition.lastResponseCorrectness = lastCorrect === 1 ? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT - : firstCorrect === 0 + : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.lastResponseCorrectness = lastCorrect === 1 ? ResponseCorrectness.CORRECT : lastCorrect === 0 ? ResponseCorrectness.WRONG : ResponseCorrectness.PARTIAL
1045-1051:
⚠️ Potential issueOptimize reducer performance by avoiding spread operator.
The use of spread operator in reducers can lead to O(n²) time complexity. Consider using Object.assign or direct property assignment instead.
-acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices -) +acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( + (acc, ix) => { + acc[ix] = (acc[ix] || 0) + 1 + return acc + }, + { ...acc.aggResponses.choices } +)📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( (acc, ix) => { acc[ix] = (acc[ix] || 0) + 1 return acc }, { ...acc.aggResponses.choices } )🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1047-1047: 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)
597-1698: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider breaking down the run function into smaller, more manageable pieces.
The function is quite large (>1000 lines) and handles multiple responsibilities. Consider splitting it into smaller functions for better maintainability:
- Data fetching
- Response processing
- Update generation
- Transaction execution
Also, add error handling for database operations:
async function run() { const prisma = new PrismaClient() + try { // ... existing code ... + } catch (error) { + console.error('Error during cleanup:', error) + throw error + } finally { + await prisma.$disconnect() + } }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1047-1047: 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] 1057-1057: 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)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
43-138: Function could be simplified using object destructuring and early returns.The
computeDetailUpdatefunction has good validation logic but could be more concise and maintainable.Consider this refactoring:
function computeDetailUpdate({ detail, newValues, }: { detail: QuestionResponseDetail newValues: { score: number pointsAwarded: number | undefined xpAwarded: number timeSpent: number } }) { - let updateReq = false + const hasChanges = ( + (typeof newValues.score !== 'undefined' && detail.score !== newValues.score) || + (detail.pointsAwarded !== null && typeof newValues.pointsAwarded !== 'undefined' && detail.pointsAwarded !== newValues.pointsAwarded) || + (typeof newValues.xpAwarded !== 'undefined' && detail.xpAwarded !== newValues.xpAwarded) || + (typeof newValues.timeSpent !== 'undefined' && detail.timeSpent !== newValues.timeSpent) + ) + if (!hasChanges) return undefined if (verbose) { // ... logging code ... } - updateReq = updateReq || ... - // ... multiple updateReq assignments - if (updateReq) { return { where: { id: detail.id }, data: { score: newValues.score, pointsAwarded: newValues.pointsAwarded, xpAwarded: newValues.xpAwarded, timeSpent: newValues.timeSpent, }, } - } else { - return undefined - } }
140-425: Similar pattern of redundant boolean flag in computeResponseUpdate.The
computeResponseUpdatefunction follows the same pattern ascomputeDetailUpdatewith a boolean flag that could be simplified.Consider using the same pattern of early return and combining the conditions into a single
hasChangescheck.
1067-1087: Replace TODO comments with helper functions.There are multiple TODO comments indicating the need for helper functions for response aggregation.
Would you like me to help create these helper functions for:
- Aggregating choices responses (line 1067)
- Aggregating numerical/free text responses (line 1274)
Also applies to: 1274-1297
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1071-1071: 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] 1081-1081: 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)
626-642: Consider batching database operations.The script fetches all instances at once which could cause memory issues with large datasets.
Consider implementing pagination or batching:
- Fetch instances in chunks (e.g., 100 at a time)
- Process each chunk
- Move to the next chunk
This would help manage memory usage for large datasets.
🛑 Comments failed to post (3)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (3)
1071-1071:
⚠️ Potential issuePerformance issue with spread operator in reduce accumulator.
The static analysis tool correctly identified a potential performance issue with using spread operators in reduce accumulators.
The current implementation has O(n²) time complexity. Consider using array methods or direct property assignment:
- acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices - ) + detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 + })Also applies to: 1081-1081
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 1071-1071: 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)
1702-1720:
⚠️ Potential issueTransaction handling could be improved.
The transaction handling is currently commented out with a TODO.
The current implementation could lead to inconsistent data if any update fails. Consider:
- Implementing proper error handling within the transaction
- Adding retry logic for failed transactions
- Logging failed updates for manual review
+ try { await prisma.$transaction([ ...detailUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponseDetail.update(update) ), ...responseUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponse.update(update) ), ...instanceUpdates.map((update) => prisma.elementInstance.update(update) ), ]) + } catch (error) { + console.error(`Failed to update instance ${instance.id}:`, error) + // Consider implementing retry logic or logging for manual review + }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
739-748: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Potential floating-point precision issues.
The average time calculation uses
Math.floorwhich might lead to precision loss.Consider using a more precise calculation method:
- acc.avgTime = Math.floor( - (acc.avgTime * acc.counter + detail.timeSpent) / (acc.counter + 1) - ) + acc.avgTime = Number( + ((acc.avgTime * acc.counter + detail.timeSpent) / (acc.counter + 1)).toFixed(2) + )📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const res = details.reduce<{ avgTime: number; counter: number }>( (acc, detail) => { acc.avgTime = Number( ((acc.avgTime * acc.counter + detail.timeSpent) / (acc.counter + 1)).toFixed(2) ) acc.counter += 1 return acc }, { avgTime: 0, counter: 0 } )
|
| GitGuardian id | GitGuardian status | Secret | Commit | Filename | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1509424 | Triggered | Generic Password | c1b8170 | deploy/compose/docker-compose.yml | View secret |
| 1623504 | Triggered | Username Password | c1b8170 | deploy/compose-traefik-proxy/klicker/services.env | View secret |
| 1509424 | Triggered | Generic Password | c1b8170 | deploy/compose/docker-compose.yml | View secret |
| 1509424 | Triggered | Generic Password | c1b8170 | docker-compose.yml | View secret |
| 1509424 | Triggered | Generic Password | f8303a6 | util/_restore-prod.sh | View secret |
| 1509424 | Triggered | Generic Password | f8303a6 | util/_restore-prod.sh | View secret |
| 1509424 | Triggered | Generic Password | f8303a6 | docker-compose.yml | View secret |
| 1509424 | Triggered | Generic Password | f8303a6 | util/_restore-prod.sh | View secret |
🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets
- Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
- Replace and store your secrets safely. Learn here the best practices.
- Revoke and rotate these secrets.
- If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.
To avoid such incidents in the future consider
- following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
- install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.
🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
1-41: Consider extracting constants to a configuration file.The constants
POINTS_PER_INSTANCE,POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS, andXP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYSappear to be configuration values. Consider moving them to a dedicated configuration file for better maintainability.-const POINTS_PER_INSTANCE = 10 -const POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 6 -const XP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 1Create a new file
config.ts:export const POINTS_CONFIG = { POINTS_PER_INSTANCE: 10, POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS: 6, XP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS: 1 } as const
43-146: Improve type safety in computeDetailUpdate function.The function uses
anyin the return type implicitly. Consider adding explicit type definitions for better type safety and code maintainability.function computeDetailUpdate({ detail, newValues, }: { detail: QuestionResponseDetail newValues: { score: number pointsAwarded: number | undefined xpAwarded: number timeSpent: number } -}) +}): { where: { id: string }, data: { score: number, pointsAwarded?: number, xpAwarded: number, timeSpent: number } } | undefined
148-442: Optimize performance in computeResponseUpdate function.The function has multiple verbose logging conditions that are commented out but still present in the code. Consider using a logging library with log levels instead of commenting out code blocks.
Consider using a logging library like
winstonorpinoand implement proper log levels:import winston from 'winston'; const logger = winston.createLogger({ level: process.env.LOG_LEVEL || 'info', format: winston.format.json(), transports: [new winston.transports.Console()] }); // Replace console.log with logger logger.debug('Response update required', { previous: response, new: newValues });
1097-1098: Address TODO comments.There are multiple TODO comments indicating missing helper functions. These should be addressed to ensure complete functionality.
Would you like me to help create these helper functions or create GitHub issues to track these tasks?
Also applies to: 1304-1305, 1537-1538
🛑 Comments failed to post (2)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (2)
1732-1750:
⚠️ Potential issueUncomment transaction code with proper error handling.
The transaction code is commented out but seems essential for data consistency. Consider uncommenting and adding proper error handling.
- // TODO: uncomment this part to apply updates in a single transaction for each element instance - // ! Execute all updates that are potentially required in a single transaction - // if ( + // Execute all updates that are potentially required in a single transaction + if ( + detailUpdates.length > 0 || + responseUpdates.length > 0 || + instanceUpdates.length > 0 + ) { + try { + await prisma.$transaction([ + ...detailUpdates.map((update) => + prisma.questionResponseDetail.update(update) + ), + ...responseUpdates.map((update) => + prisma.questionResponse.update(update) + ), + ...instanceUpdates.map((update) => + prisma.elementInstance.update(update) + ), + ]) + } catch (error) { + console.error('Transaction failed:', error) + throw error + } + }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.// Execute all updates that are potentially required in a single transaction if ( detailUpdates.length > 0 || responseUpdates.length > 0 || instanceUpdates.length > 0 ) { try { await prisma.$transaction([ ...detailUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponseDetail.update(update) ), ...responseUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponse.update(update) ), ...instanceUpdates.map((update) => prisma.elementInstance.update(update) ), ]) } catch (error) { console.error('Transaction failed:', error) throw error } }
647-672:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for database operations.
The
runfunction lacks proper error handling for database operations. Consider implementing proper error handling and cleanup.async function run() { const prisma = new PrismaClient() + try { const MD5 = createHash('md5') let counter = 0 // fetch all element instances with their corresponding responses const instances = await prisma.elementInstance.findMany({ // ... existing config }) // ... rest of the function + } catch (error) { + console.error('Error during cleanup:', error) + throw error + } finally { + await prisma.$disconnect() + } }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (2)
510-511: Address TODO comments regarding helper functions.There are multiple TODO comments about replacing code with helper functions. This technical debt should be addressed to improve code maintainability.
Would you like me to help create these helper functions or create GitHub issues to track this work?
Also applies to: 717-718
40-41: Improve logging strategy.The verbose logging is controlled by a global flag and could impact performance. Consider using a proper logging framework with configurable log levels.
-const verbose = true +import winston from 'winston' + +const logger = winston.createLogger({ + level: process.env.LOG_LEVEL || 'info', + format: winston.format.json(), + transports: [ + new winston.transports.Console(), + new winston.transports.File({ filename: 'cleanup-script.log' }) + ] +}) // Replace console.log with logger - if (verbose) { - console.log( + logger.debug( 'Score not identical:', detail.score, newValues.score, detail.id ) - }Also applies to: 1201-1248
🛑 Comments failed to post (5)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (5)
67-68:
⚠️ Potential issueClarify the purpose of take/skip limits.
The query limits results to 100 records starting from position 200. This seems arbitrary and could lead to incomplete data processing. Consider implementing proper pagination or batch processing.
- take: 100, - skip: 200, + // Implement proper batch processing + take: BATCH_SIZE, + skip: currentBatch * BATCH_SIZE,Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
512-518:
⚠️ Potential issueFix O(n²) time complexity in reduce operations.
The use of spread operator in reduce accumulator creates O(n²) time complexity. Consider using array methods or direct property assignment.
- acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices - ) + // Direct property assignment for O(n) complexity + detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 + })📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.// Direct property assignment for O(n) complexity detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 })🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 514-514: 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)
46-69:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for database operations.
The database operations lack proper error handling. Consider wrapping the database initialization and queries in try-catch blocks.
async function run() { - const prisma = new PrismaClient() + let prisma: PrismaClient + try { + prisma = new PrismaClient() + } catch (error) { + console.error('Failed to initialize database connection:', error) + process.exit(1) + } let counter = 0 + try { const instances = await prisma.elementInstance.findMany({ // ... existing query ... }) + } catch (error) { + console.error('Failed to fetch element instances:', error) + await prisma.$disconnect() + process.exit(1) + }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
1150-1182:
⚠️ Potential issueUncomment and improve transaction handling.
The transaction code is commented out, which could lead to data inconsistency if updates fail partially. Consider implementing proper transaction handling with rollback support.
- // TODO: uncomment this part to apply updates in a single transaction for each element instance - // if ( + if ( detailUpdates.length > 0 || responseUpdates.length > 0 || instanceUpdates.length > 0 || Object.keys(participantUpdates).length > 0 - // ) { + ) { + try { await prisma.$transaction([ ...detailUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponseDetail.update(update) ), // ... other updates ]) + } catch (error) { + console.error('Failed to update records:', error) + // Consider implementing retry logic or proper error reporting + throw error + } }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
35-38: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider moving configuration values to environment variables.
The hardcoded values for points and timeframes should be moved to environment variables or a configuration file for better maintainability and flexibility across different environments.
-const POINTS_PER_INSTANCE = 10 -const POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 6 -const XP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 1 +const POINTS_PER_INSTANCE = process.env.POINTS_PER_INSTANCE ?? 10 +const POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = process.env.POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS ?? 6 +const XP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = process.env.XP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS ?? 1Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
48-49: Optimize MD5 hash reuseThe MD5 hash is reinitialized for each value, which is inefficient. Consider reusing the hash instance by resetting it instead of creating a new one.
- const MD5 = createHash('md5') + let MD5 = createHash('md5') + const resetMD5 = () => { + MD5 = createHash('md5') + }
1213-1262: Improve logging configurationThe verbose logging is controlled by a simple boolean flag and includes commented-out debug statements. Consider using a proper logging framework with configurable log levels.
- const verbose = true + const LOG_LEVEL = process.env.LOG_LEVEL || 'info' + const logger = createLogger({ + level: LOG_LEVEL, + format: format.combine( + format.timestamp(), + format.json() + ) + })
1265-1281: Simplify update detection logicThe update detection logic uses multiple boolean operations that could be simplified. Consider using a more declarative approach.
function hasChanged<T>(oldValue: T | null | undefined, newValue: T | undefined): boolean { return typeof newValue !== 'undefined' && oldValue !== newValue } const updateReq = [ hasChanged(detail.score, newValues.score), hasChanged(detail.pointsAwarded, newValues.pointsAwarded), hasChanged(detail.xpAwarded, newValues.xpAwarded), hasChanged(detail.timeSpent, newValues.timeSpent), ].some(Boolean)
1620-1635: Improve type safety in instance update computationThe function uses a complex type intersection that could be made more explicit with proper type guards.
interface InstanceUpdateInput { instance: ElementInstance & { instanceStatistics: InstanceStatistics } newValues: { results: ElementInstanceResults correctCount: number // ... other fields } } function computeInstanceUpdate(input: InstanceUpdateInput) { // ... rest of the function }
🛑 Comments failed to post (5)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (5)
207-833: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Reduce code duplication across element types
The code has significant duplication in handling different element types. Consider extracting common functionality into shared helper functions.
For example, create a shared function for response evaluation:
function evaluateAndUpdateResponse( detail: QuestionResponseDetail, instance: ElementInstance, acc: ResponseAccumulator ): void { const correctness = evaluateAnswerCorrectness({ elementData: instance.elementData, response: detail.response, }) updateScoreAndCounts(acc, correctness, detail) updateSpacedRepetitionParams(acc, correctness, detail) updateAggregatedResponses(acc, detail, correctness) }🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 527-527: 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] 537-537: 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)
67-68: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider implementing proper pagination
The current implementation uses hard-coded
takeandskipvalues, which may miss records or process them multiple times if the script is run repeatedly. Consider implementing proper cursor-based pagination to process all records reliably.- take: 100, - skip: 200, + take: BATCH_SIZE, + cursor: lastProcessedCursor,Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
46-48:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for database operations
The script lacks error handling for database connection and operations. Consider wrapping the database operations in try-catch blocks and implementing proper cleanup.
async function run() { - const prisma = new PrismaClient() + let prisma: PrismaClient | undefined + try { + prisma = new PrismaClient() + // ... rest of the function + } catch (error) { + console.error('Failed to execute cleanup script:', error) + throw error + } finally { + if (prisma) { + await prisma.$disconnect() + } + } }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
525-531:
⚠️ Potential issueFix O(n²) complexity in response aggregation
The spread operator in the reducer creates a new object on each iteration, leading to O(n²) complexity. Consider using direct property assignment instead.
- acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices - ) + detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 + })📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 })🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 527-527: Avoid the use of spread (
...) syntax on accumulators.Spread syntax should be avoided on accumulators (like those in
.reduce) because it causes a time complexity ofO(n^2).
Consider methods such as .splice or .push instead.(lint/performance/noAccumulatingSpread)
1163-1195: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
⚠️ Potential issueEnable transaction support for data consistency
The transaction support is currently commented out. This could lead to inconsistent data if any operation fails mid-way. Consider enabling transactions with proper error handling.
- // ! Execute all updates that are potentially required in a single transaction - // if ( + if ( detailUpdates.length > 0 || responseUpdates.length > 0 || instanceUpdates.length > 0 || Object.keys(participantUpdates).length > 0 - // ) { + ) { + try { await prisma.$transaction([ ...detailUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponseDetail.update(update) ), ...responseUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponse.update(update) ), ...instanceUpdates.map((update) => prisma.elementInstance.update(update) ), ...Object.entries(participantUpdates).map( ([participantId, updatedData]) => prisma.participant.update({ where: { id: participantId }, data: { xp: { increment: updatedData.additionalXp ?? 0 } } }) ) ]) + } catch (error) { + console.error('Transaction failed:', error) + throw error + } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.if ( detailUpdates.length > 0 || responseUpdates.length > 0 || instanceUpdates.length > 0 || Object.keys(participantUpdates).length > 0 ) { try { await prisma.$transaction([ ...detailUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponseDetail.update(update) ), ...responseUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponse.update(update) ), ...instanceUpdates.map((update) => prisma.elementInstance.update(update) ), ...Object.entries(participantUpdates).map( ([participantId, updatedData]) => prisma.participant.update({ where: { id: participantId }, data: { xp: { increment: updatedData.additionalXp ?? 0 } } }) ) ]) } catch (error) { console.error('Transaction failed:', error) throw error } }
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (2)
35-41: Add documentation for configuration constants and flags.The script's configuration values and debug flags lack documentation explaining their purpose and impact. Consider adding JSDoc comments to explain:
- The significance of
POINTS_PER_INSTANCE- The reasoning behind
POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYSandXP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS- The purpose and impact of the
verboseflag-// TODO: once available, update this script with the helper functions from the stacks service -const POINTS_PER_INSTANCE = 10 -const POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 6 -const XP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 1 +// TODO: once available, update this script with the helper functions from the stacks service +/** Base points awarded for each instance completion */ +const POINTS_PER_INSTANCE = 10 +/** Number of days before points can be awarded again for the same instance */ +const POINTS_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 6 +/** Number of days before XP can be awarded again for the same instance */ +const XP_AWARD_TIMEFRAME_DAYS = 1 -// ? Flag for extended logging -const verbose = true +/** Enable detailed logging for debugging response updates */ +const verbose = true
43-46: Consider architectural improvements for the cleanup script.The script would benefit from several architectural improvements:
- Add a dry-run mode to validate changes without applying them
- Implement proper logging with levels (error, warn, info, debug)
- Add progress tracking and resumability
- Consider breaking down the large
runfunction into smaller, focused functions per element typeWould you like assistance in implementing these improvements?
🛑 Comments failed to post (4)
packages/graphql/src/scripts/2024-10-31_cleanup_responses.ts (4)
1234-1649: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor update computation functions to reduce code duplication.
The
computeDetailUpdate,computeResponseUpdate, andcomputeInstanceUpdatefunctions share similar patterns for checking and constructing updates.Consider creating a generic update computation function:
interface UpdateConfig<T> { current: T new: Partial<T> verbose?: boolean logPrefix?: string } function computeUpdate<T>({ current, new: newValues, verbose, logPrefix }: UpdateConfig<T>) { let updateReq = false // Compare each property Object.entries(newValues).forEach(([key, value]) => { if (typeof value !== 'undefined') { const currentValue = current[key as keyof T] const isDifferent = value instanceof Object ? !isDeepEqual(currentValue, value) : currentValue !== value if (isDifferent) { updateReq = true if (verbose) { console.log( `${logPrefix} ${key} not identical:`, currentValue, value ) } } } }) return updateReq ? newValues : undefined }
52-69:
⚠️ Potential issueReview pagination strategy for cleanup script.
The script processes a fixed subset of instances with hardcoded
takeandskipvalues. This could:
- Miss instances that need cleanup
- Process instances in an inconsistent order across runs
Consider implementing:
- Batch processing with configurable batch size
- Cursor-based pagination
- Progress tracking for resumability
- take: 100, - skip: 200, + // Process instances in batches + take: BATCH_SIZE, + cursor: lastProcessedCursor, + orderBy: { id: 'asc' },Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
558-578:
⚠️ Potential issueOptimize reducer performance by avoiding spread operator.
The current implementation using spread operator in reducers has O(n²) time complexity.
Refactor to use direct property assignment:
- acc.aggResponses.choices = detail.response.choices.reduce( - (acc, ix) => ({ - ...acc, - [ix]: acc[ix]! + 1, - }), - acc.aggResponses.choices - ) + // Update choices directly without spread + detail.response.choices.forEach((ix) => { + acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] = (acc.aggResponses.choices[ix] || 0) + 1 + })Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 562-562: 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] 572-572: 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)
1198-1231:
⚠️ Potential issueEnable transaction support to ensure data consistency.
The transaction code is commented out, which could lead to partial updates and data inconsistency if the script fails mid-execution.
Uncomment and implement proper error handling:
- // TODO: uncomment this part to apply updates in a single transaction for each element instance - // ! Execute all updates that are potentially required in a single transaction - // if ( + // Execute all updates in a single transaction + if ( detailUpdates.length > 0 || responseUpdates.length > 0 || instanceUpdates.length > 0 || Object.keys(participantUpdates).length > 0 - // ) { - // await prisma.$transaction([ + ) { + try { + await prisma.$transaction([ ...detailUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponseDetail.update(update) ), ...responseUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponse.update(update) ), ...instanceUpdates.map((update) => prisma.elementInstance.update(update) ), ...Object.entries(participantUpdates).map( ([participantId, updatedData]) => prisma.participant.update({ where: { id: participantId, }, data: { xp: { increment: updatedData.additionalXp ?? 0, }, }, }) ), - // ]) - // } + ]) + } catch (error) { + console.error('Transaction failed:', error) + throw error + } + }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.// Execute all updates in a single transaction if ( detailUpdates.length > 0 || responseUpdates.length > 0 || instanceUpdates.length > 0 || Object.keys(participantUpdates).length > 0 ) { try { await prisma.$transaction([ ...detailUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponseDetail.update(update) ), ...responseUpdates.map((update) => prisma.questionResponse.update(update) ), ...instanceUpdates.map((update) => prisma.elementInstance.update(update) ), ...Object.entries(participantUpdates).map( ([participantId, updatedData]) => prisma.participant.update({ where: { id: participantId, }, data: { xp: { increment: updatedData.additionalXp ?? 0, }, }, }) ), ]) } catch (error) { console.error('Transaction failed:', error) throw error } } }
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
_run_app_dependencies_macos.sh (1)
7-7: Consider adding startup order management.The script starts multiple services without ensuring proper startup order. Consider adding health checks or startup dependencies.
-docker compose up postgres postgres_diff redis_exec redis_cache reverse_proxy_macos +# Ensure PostgreSQL services are ready before starting dependent services +docker compose up -d postgres postgres_diff +echo "Waiting for PostgreSQL services to be ready..." +docker compose exec postgres_diff pg_isready -h localhost -p 5432 +docker compose exec postgres_diff pg_isready -h localhost -p 5433 + +# Start remaining services +docker compose up redis_exec redis_cache reverse_proxy_macosutil/_restore-prod.sh (1)
1-3: Add documentation explaining dual restore purposeThe script lacks documentation explaining why two database restores are needed and their respective purposes.
Add a header comment explaining the purpose:
#!/bin/sh + +# This script restores a database dump to both the primary PostgreSQL instance (port 5432) +# and the secondary instance (port 5433) used for differential analysis. +# +# Environment variables required: +# - DB_PASSWORD: Database password +# - DB_USER: Database username +# - DB_NAME: Database name +# +# The script will exit with status 1 if any restore operation fails.
🛑 Comments failed to post (3)
util/_restore-prod.sh (2)
2-3: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling and progress feedback
The script lacks error handling between restore operations and doesn't provide feedback about the progress.
Here's a suggested improvement:
-PGPASSWORD="klicker" pg_restore --host="localhost" --port=5432 --user="klicker" --dbname="klicker-prod" --no-owner --format="t" dump.tar -PGPASSWORD="klicker" pg_restore --host="localhost" --port=5433 --user="klicker" --dbname="klicker-prod" --no-owner --format="t" dump.tar +restore_database() { + local port=$1 + echo "Starting restore on port $port..." + + PGPASSWORD="$DB_PASSWORD" pg_restore \ + --host="localhost" \ + --port="$port" \ + --user="$DB_USER" \ + --dbname="$DB_NAME" \ + --no-owner \ + --format="t" \ + dump.tar + + if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then + echo "Restore completed successfully on port $port" + else + echo "Error: Restore failed on port $port" + exit 1 + fi +} + +# Restore to primary database +restore_database 5432 + +# Restore to secondary database +restore_database 5433📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.restore_database() { local port=$1 echo "Starting restore on port $port..." PGPASSWORD="$DB_PASSWORD" pg_restore \ --host="localhost" \ --port="$port" \ --user="$DB_USER" \ --dbname="$DB_NAME" \ --no-owner \ --format="t" \ dump.tar if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then echo "Restore completed successfully on port $port" else echo "Error: Restore failed on port $port" exit 1 fi } # Restore to primary database restore_database 5432 # Restore to secondary database restore_database 5433
2-3:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity: Avoid hardcoding database credentials
The script currently contains hardcoded credentials which is a security risk. Consider using environment variables instead.
Here's a suggested improvement:
-PGPASSWORD="klicker" pg_restore --host="localhost" --port=5432 --user="klicker" --dbname="klicker-prod" --no-owner --format="t" dump.tar -PGPASSWORD="klicker" pg_restore --host="localhost" --port=5433 --user="klicker" --dbname="klicker-prod" --no-owner --format="t" dump.tar +# Read credentials from environment variables +if [ -z "$DB_PASSWORD" ] || [ -z "$DB_USER" ] || [ -z "$DB_NAME" ]; then + echo "Error: Required environment variables DB_PASSWORD, DB_USER, or DB_NAME are not set" + exit 1 +fi + +PGPASSWORD="$DB_PASSWORD" pg_restore --host="localhost" --port=5432 --user="$DB_USER" --dbname="$DB_NAME" --no-owner --format="t" dump.tar +PGPASSWORD="$DB_PASSWORD" pg_restore --host="localhost" --port=5433 --user="$DB_USER" --dbname="$DB_NAME" --no-owner --format="t" dump.tar📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.# Read credentials from environment variables if [ -z "$DB_PASSWORD" ] || [ -z "$DB_USER" ] || [ -z "$DB_NAME" ]; then echo "Error: Required environment variables DB_PASSWORD, DB_USER, or DB_NAME are not set" exit 1 fi PGPASSWORD="$DB_PASSWORD" pg_restore --host="localhost" --port=5432 --user="$DB_USER" --dbname="$DB_NAME" --no-owner --format="t" dump.tar PGPASSWORD="$DB_PASSWORD" pg_restore --host="localhost" --port=5433 --user="$DB_USER" --dbname="$DB_NAME" --no-owner --format="t" dump.tardocker-compose.yml (1)
142-154: 💡 Codebase verification
Consider using separate initialization scripts for the duplicate PostgreSQL services
The
init.sqlscript creates two databases: "shadow" and "klicker-prod-lti". Since both PostgreSQL services share this initialization script, they will attempt to create the same databases, which:
- May not be necessary for the diff/comparison purpose
- Could lead to confusion about which instance contains the actual shadow and LTI databases
Consider:
- Creating a separate initialization script for the
postgres_diffservice with only the required databases- Adding comments in the docker-compose.yml to document the purpose of each PostgreSQL instance
- Using distinct database names to clearly separate the instances' purposes
🔗 Analysis chain
Document the purpose of the duplicate PostgreSQL service.
While the configuration is technically correct, having two identical PostgreSQL instances could lead to confusion. Consider:
- Adding comments to explain why this duplicate service is needed
- Using a different database name (e.g., 'klicker-diff' instead of 'klicker-prod') to avoid confusion
- Ensuring the init.sql script is appropriate for both instances
Let's check if the init.sql script is suitable for both instances:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the content of init.sql to ensure it's appropriate for both instances cat util/init.sqlLength of output: 81
klicker-uzh
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project |
klicker-uzh
|
| Branch Review |
v3
|
| Run status |
|
| Run duration | 11m 34s |
| Commit |
|
| Committer | Julius Schlapbach |
| View all properties for this run ↗︎ | |
| Test results | |
|---|---|
|
Failures
|
0
|
|
Flaky
|
0
|
|
Pending
|
0
|
|
Skipped
|
0
|
|
Passing
|
140
|
| View all changes introduced in this branch ↗︎ | |
To execute scripts:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Refactor