fix: bill number edge case: #673
Conversation
ruuushhh
temporarily deployed
to
CI Environment
GitHub Actions
Inactive
ruuushhh
temporarily deployed
to
CI Environment
GitHub Actions
Inactive
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request update the filtering logic in the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- apps/quickbooks_online/models.py (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
apps/quickbooks_online/models.py (1)
195-197: Approved change, but consider potential edge casesThe modification to use
bill_number__icontainsinstead of an exact match addresses the PR objective of fixing a bill number edge case. This change makes the search case-insensitive and allows for partial matches, which can be beneficial in certain scenarios.However, there are a few points to consider:
This change could potentially lead to false positives if bill numbers are not unique enough. For example, if you have bill numbers like "BILL-001" and "BILL-0011", both might be counted for either one.
The function doesn't handle the case where multiple bills might match the new criteria. Consider how you want to handle such situations.
To ensure this change doesn't introduce unintended consequences, please run the following verification:
Recommendations:
- Add a comment explaining the reason for using
icontainsto help future developers understand the decision.- Consider adding additional checks to ensure uniqueness if necessary, such as including more fields in the filter or implementing a more robust numbering system.
Verification successful
Change Verified
The use of
bill_number__icontainshas been reviewed and does not present issues with duplicate bill numbers in the current codebase. Existing bill numbers are sufficiently unique to prevent false positives.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential duplicate bill numbers that might cause issues with the new icontains filter # Search for bill number patterns in the codebase echo "Searching for bill number patterns:" rg --type python 'bill_number.*=.*' -g '!*test*' # Search for existing uses of the get_bill_number function echo "Searching for uses of get_bill_number function:" rg --type python 'get_bill_number\(' -g '!*test*'Length of output: 350
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential duplicate bill numbers that might cause issues with the new icontains filter # Search for bill number patterns in the codebase echo "Searching for bill number patterns:" rg -t python 'bill_number.*=.*' -g '!*test*' # Search for existing uses of the get_bill_number function echo "Searching for uses of get_bill_number function:" rg -t python 'get_bill_number\(' -g '!*test*'Length of output: 342
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential duplicate bill numbers that might cause issues with the new icontains filter # Search for bill number patterns in the codebase echo "Searching for bill number patterns:" rg -g '*.py' 'bill_number\s*=\s*.*' -g '!*test*' # Search for existing uses of the get_bill_number function echo "Searching for uses of get_bill_number function:" rg -g '*.py' 'get_bill_number\(' -g '!*test*'Length of output: 793
| count = Bill.objects.filter(bill_number__icontains=bill_number, expense_group__workspace_id=expense_group.workspace.id).count() | ||
| if count > 0: | ||
| bill_number = '{} - {}'.format(bill_number, count) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Suggestion: Add tests for the new bill number matching behavior
While the change in the get_bill_number function is localized, it's important to ensure that this new behavior is properly tested. This will help catch any potential issues with the new matching logic and prevent regressions in the future.
Consider adding the following types of tests:
- Test with exact match bill numbers
- Test with case-insensitive matches
- Test with partial matches
- Test with multiple potential matches
- Test with no matches
These tests will help validate the new behavior and ensure it works as expected across different scenarios.
Co-authored-by: GitHub Actions <[email protected]>
Description
bill number edge case:
Clickup
https://app.clickup.com/t/86cwk7a1e
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes