Changing created to modified time #6234
Conversation
readthedocs/search/tasks.py
Outdated
| @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ def record_search_query(project_slug, version_slug, query, total_results, time_s | |||
| project__slug=project_slug, | |||
| version__slug=version_slug, | |||
| created__gte=before_10_sec, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should also be changed to modified__gte=before_10_sec.
readthedocs/search/tasks.py
Outdated
| @@ -210,5 +210,5 @@ def record_search_query(project_slug, version_slug, query, total_results, time_s | |||
| version=version, | |||
| query=query, | |||
| ) | |||
| obj.created = time | |||
| obj.modified = time | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line should be removed.
modified field gets updated automatically.
Also, this can be simplified to
SearchQuery.objects.create(
project=project,
version=version,
query=query,
)
|
Travis error seems unrelated. |
Same. The testing was successful on my system, that's why I opened the pull request. |
| @@ -210,5 +210,3 @@ def record_search_query(project_slug, version_slug, query, total_results, time_s | |||
| version=version, | |||
| query=query, | |||
| ) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't need the obj anymore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but SearchQuery.objects.create this thing is needed right?
okay let me update the PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but SearchQuery.objects.create this thing is needed right?
yes
|
@dojutsu-user why travis is failing, do you have any Idea? |
|
@Iamshankhadeep test on travis are fixed on #6233 (after that you should merge master into your branch to run the tests again) |
|
@stsewd I got it. |
|
@Iamshankhadeep you can merge master into this branch now |
|
@dojutsu-user shouldn't this be removed too? readthedocs.org/readthedocs/search/tasks.py Line 169 in 0b657c3 |
|
This looks ready to be merged. The only thing missing is to delete what @stsewd mentioned in the previous comment. |
|
I discussed this with @stsewd. Waiting for his review here. |
|
@Iamshankhadeep yes, you still need to remove that |
|
Just for clarification, what we discuss with @dojutsu-user is about using the celery-created-time (which probably isn't really important to have that precision vs the complexity of keeping track of the exact time) vs using the real-created-time (current implementation) of the query. In the later case we don't need the |
|
So if we use real-created-time then we wont be needing |
We can do that in another PR, or just start testing with this change for now |
|
@stsewd why is it not merged? |
|
@Iamshankhadeep all good, just waiting for an additional review, but we can just merge it. |
fixes #6155