db: Add query review tables and update QueryExecutionStatus enum #19
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jczhong84
reviewed
Dec 12, 2024
Comment on lines
34
to
36
| status = sql.Column( | ||
| sql.Enum(QueryReviewStatus), nullable=False, default=QueryReviewStatus.PENDING | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for a query review, it will link to a query execution by query_execution_id, which also contains the review status, it seems duplicate with this review status to me. maybe
- we dont really need this
QueryReviewStatus, just use the execution status instead - or for the
QueryExecutionStatus, we only introduce a generalPENDINGstatus, but not specific to review pending, and no rejected status. so every execution will start with a PENDING status.
Comment on lines
37
to
30
| review_request_reason = sql.Column( | ||
| sql.String(length=description_length), nullable=True | ||
| ) | ||
| rejection_reason = sql.Column(sql.String(length=description_length), nullable=True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think request and rejection reason should be both required
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I realized we will only have rejection reason after reviewer rejects, so will make rejection_reason nullable=True for review request creation
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| if updated: | ||
| query_review.updated_at = datetime.datetime.now() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the update() function above already handles the update_at field.
zhangvi7
force-pushed
the
peer-review/db
branch
from
5f4b7e5 to
4e0f81d
Compare
zhangvi7
force-pushed
the
peer-review/db
branch
from
4e0f81d to
e365c81
Compare
|
Changes:
|
jczhong84
approved these changes
Dec 16, 2024
czgu
reviewed
Dec 16, 2024
|
|
||
| @with_session | ||
| def get_query_review_from_query_execution_id(query_execution_id: int, session=None): | ||
| query_execution = get_query_execution_by_id(query_execution_id, session=session) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why go through the route of getting query execution, we could do
QueryReview.get(query_execution_id=query_execution_id, session=session)
d122269 to
76f8903
Compare
zhangvi7
force-pushed
the
peer-review/db
branch
from
e365c81 to
62e53a1
Compare
czgu
approved these changes
Dec 17, 2024
zhangvi7
force-pushed
the
peer-review/db
branch
from
62e53a1 to
79a01da
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changes