-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Some finessing from QA - item filters and undefined sorting #406
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Binary file not shown.
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
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
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,6 +1,23 @@ | ||
const logger = require('./logger') | ||
const isItemNyplOwned = require('./ownership_determination').isItemNyplOwned | ||
|
||
exports.sortOnPropWithUndefinedLast = (property) => { | ||
return function (a, b) { | ||
// equal items sort equally | ||
if (a[property]?.[0] === b[property]?.[0]) { | ||
return 0 | ||
} | ||
// nulls sort after anything else | ||
if (!a[property]?.[0]) { | ||
return 1 | ||
} | ||
if (!b[property]?.[0]) { | ||
return -1 | ||
} | ||
return a[property]?.[0] > b[property]?.[0] ? -1 : 1 | ||
} | ||
} | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Great reusability |
||
|
||
exports.buildJsonLdContext = function (prefixes) { | ||
const context = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(prefixes)) | ||
delete context.urn | ||
|
Binary file not shown.
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
This is fine, but I kind of think use of
?all_items
with any item filter should return a 4xx earlier, since it's nonsensical. That would mean we don't have to handle that possibility here. As written, it looks like we'll just ignoreall_items
if any item filter is applied. But above is also fine.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.
Ah yes there was a decision made around this that I forgot to explain. The front end spec is that a user can filter items, and then click view all to de-paginate the results. We decided to expedite the release of this endpoint by letting the front end decide whether to use all_items or to revert to the already implemented batched filtering solution. Eventually, we actually do want to have some combination of params that will return all of a bib's items for a given filter.