Change response structure for record summary

[Anish9901]

Fixes #3801

Checklist

• My pull request has a descriptive title (not a vague title like Update index.md).
• My pull request targets the develop branch of the repository
• My commit messages follow best practices.
• My code follows the established code style of the repository.
• I added tests for the changes I made (if applicable).
• I added or updated documentation (if applicable).
• I tried running the project locally and verified that there are no
  visible errors.

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1

Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
1 Letterman Drive
Suite D4700
San Francisco, CA, 94129

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.


Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
    have the right to submit it under the open source license
    indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
    it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

[seancolsen]

This is returning results like:

{
  "2": [
    {
      "1234": "Foo bar"
    },
    {
      "5678": "Baz bat"
    }
  ]
}

Instead, I want results like:

{
  "2": {
    "1234": "Foo bar",
    "5678": "Baz bat"
  }
}

[Anish9901]

Ahh, should be now @seancolsen.

[seancolsen]

Thanks. This gives me what I need now 🙂

[mathemancer]

One small typing issue.

If it's not a problem for @seancolsen , please just fix the type annotation and merge. If it is, we need to rethink the response form since PostgreSQL can't do non-text JSON keys.

I'm going to approve (provisionally) since in the former case it's a small change and I don't want to hold things up.

[mathemancer]

The key will always be a string due to the nature of jsonb_object_agg. So, this should be:

Suggested change

	preview_data: dict[str, dict[Any, str]]
	preview_data: dict[str, dict[str, str]]

@seancolsen To double-check, are you sure that mistyping won't cause a problem?

[mathemancer]

Same

Suggested change

	preview_data: dict[str, dict[Any, str]]
	preview_data: dict[str, dict[str, str]]

[mathemancer]

The issue I mentioned above is visible here.

[mathemancer]

@seancolsen I re-requested review from you to check that the typing issue I mentioned won't be a problem.

[seancolsen]

@mathemancer @Anish9901 a few thoughts in response to the recent comments on this PR:

• Yes, I understand the limitation that keys must be strings. And (as far as I know), this limitation is part of JSON itself — not just PostgreSQL. So because we're using JSON-RPC there's no getting around it. It's not a problem though.

• As far as the python type annotations are concerned, I didn't even look at them. Honestly I'm finding them to be less and less useful. So personally I consider any errors in these type annotations to be extremely low priority right now.