fix: sorting for completed and scheduled maintenance entries #384
Conversation
* Completed entries are sorted by descending completion date * Scheduled entries are sorted by ascending scheduling date * Selecting both entries shall sort them by scheduling and then completion date in descending order
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily focus on enhancing the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Security Recommendations
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
backend/internal/data/repo/repo_maintenance_entry.go (1)
162-162: Security Recommendation: Add rate limiting for large queriesWhile the implementation is secure using the Ent ORM, consider adding rate limiting or pagination for the query execution to prevent potential DoS attacks through excessive data retrieval.
Consider implementing:
- Pagination using Ent's Limit() and Offset()
- Request rate limiting at the API layer
- Maximum result set size constraints
🛑 Comments failed to post (1)
backend/internal/data/repo/repo_maintenance_entry.go (1)
140-160: 💡 Codebase verification
Add indexes to optimize query performance and enhance security
The maintenance entry schema lacks indexes for the sorting operations. To ensure optimal performance and prevent potential DoS vectors through unindexed sorting, please add:
- An index on
(item_id, scheduled_date)for scheduled entries queries- An index on
(item_id, date)for completed entries queriesAdd this to the schema in
backend/internal/data/ent/schema/maintenance_entry.go:func (MaintenanceEntry) Indexes() []ent.Index { return []ent.Index{ index.Fields("item_id", "scheduled_date"), index.Fields("item_id", "date"), } }Security recommendations:
- Monitor query execution times in production
- Set appropriate query timeouts
- Consider implementing rate limiting for these endpoints
🔗 Analysis chain
Implementation aligns with sorting requirements
The sorting logic correctly implements the specified requirements:
- Scheduled entries: ascending by scheduled date
- Completed entries: descending by completion date
- Mixed status: descending by both dates
Let's verify the database indexes for optimal query performance:
Consider adding the following indexes if not already present:
- (item_id, scheduled_date) - for scheduled entries queries
- (item_id, date) - for completed entries queries
These indexes will optimize the sorting operations, especially for large datasets.
Let me check the schema definition for maintenance entries to verify if appropriate indexes exist.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for index definitions on maintenance_entries table # Search for index definitions in schema files rg -A 5 "Index\(|CreateIndex" --type go # Search for any existing performance-related comments rg -i "performance|index" --type goLength of output: 4322
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for maintenance entry schema definition and indexes rg -A 20 "type MaintenanceEntry struct" --type go # Also check for any existing index definitions in the maintenance entry schema ast-grep --pattern 'func (MaintenanceEntry) Indexes() []ent.Index { $$$ }'Length of output: 3621
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Maintenance entries are expected to sorted from closest to the current date to furthest away in time. That means, for scheduled entries the user would expect to see the next entry that will be scheduled first, and for completed entries the user would expect to see the last completed entry first in the list.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
No tracking issue.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Testing
Summary by CodeRabbit