-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
improve the list run query #687
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: IronPan The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/assign @yebrahim |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Does it make sense to have unit tests that validate the final raw queries built by using these blocks? It's easy when refactoring this code to result in less efficient queries that will still pass correctness unit tests.
/lgtm
return selectBuilder, util.NewInternalServerError(err, "Failed to append filter condition to list job: %v", | ||
err.Error()) | ||
} | ||
func (s *JobStore) toFilteredQuery(filterContext *common.FilterContext) (sq.SelectBuilder, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: since this doesn't take a query anymore, maybe rename to buildFilteredQuery
or something similar?
Minor typo error in the example yaml as I understand.
Move the filter on resource reference to the first select statement in the nested sql
This change is