Lf 4694 create get endpoint to check if an ensemble addon exists b #3671

Duncan-Brain · 2025-01-29T00:30:05Z

Description

Adds a get endpoint for addons. Returns 200 if an addon exists with addon_partner_id or if not specified. Return 404 if there is no addon present on farm.

Jira link: LF-4694

Type of change

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

Passes test case
UI components visually reviewed on desktop view
UI components visually reviewed on mobile view
Other (please explain): Postman check

Checklist:

I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
My changes generate no new warnings
I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
The precommit and linting ran successfully
I have added or updated language tags for text that's part of the UI
I have added "MISSING" for all new language tags to languages I don't speak
I have added the GNU General Public License to all new files

kathyavini · 2025-01-29T00:39:23Z

@Duncan-Brain yup I just made those same two files on my POST branch 😂 But it might still work out.

…if-an-ensemble-addon-exists-b

Duncan-Brain · 2025-01-31T15:17:41Z

Updated to allow addon_partner_id not be specified - same response style.

@kathyavini I have never took notice of it before but we used two different function styles and I wanted to align them here.

I am thinking about updating to the style I copied -- I think I got lucky on which template file I used but I am solely basing my intent to align them on GPT response:

Any other thoughts before I go with the higher order function way?

kathyavini · 2025-01-31T17:33:34Z

@Duncan-Brain I have absolutely no preference when it comes to function styles 😂 addFarmAddon() used to live in the sensor controller before the new route and model is the only reason it's the way it is. Please feel free to refactor 👍 🙏

kathyavini · 2025-01-31T17:35:28Z

packages/webapp/src/routes/index.jsx

@@ -54,85 +54,87 @@ const Prices = React.lazy(() => import('../containers/Insights/Prices'));
 const ExpiredTokenScreen = React.lazy(() => import('../containers/ExpiredTokenScreen'));


Oh no the pre-commit linting diff returns 🤣 We really have to work that out.

But also I can't figure out why is there a diff on webapp routes in this PR? What's the actual (non-linting) diff here?

Its on the merge commit... so maybe merge commits count as touching files? There is no diff from me... Linting or merge process must be undoing or redoing same thing as Sayakas ... I think I did just redo a pnpm i also so maybe there was an update to the linter rule? I have zero personal vscode plugins like prettier installed so it wouldn't be that.

Okay, I guess it's getting committed, then! 😂

I'll just ping @antsgar because it looks like it was her merge commit that commited the current state. Anto you weren't at our tech daily where we looked at this based on Sayaka's PR with the same diff, but the ESLint rule running on commit is making the diff on the right, while prettier linting (format on save) according to our .prettierrc does the diff on the left. So if you work on this file you get the left diff, and when you run the pre-commit hook it will transform to the right -- kind of obnoxious 😝 Is it possible your pre-commit lint was off at one point doing the unused animals bit?

Anyway I think it would better if prettier + eslint weren't at odds in this way -- I think there should be some way to make prettier eslint aware (or vice versa) that we aren't implementing properly but in any case let's commit and sorry @SayakaOno I made you revert this earlier 😅

Oh, thank you for finding that commit! I'm making some changes to the file again, and I'll leave it this time! 😂

Oh no, how annoying 😓 I always get the diff on the left no matter what, even if I change something on this file and format on save and then commit it

…if-an-ensemble-addon-exists-b

kathyavini

It looks good!

I think we also need to get the org_uuid back though so the component can display it.

kathyavini · 2025-02-03T18:25:01Z

packages/api/src/controllers/farmAddonController.js

+        const { addon_partner_id } = req.query;
+        const rows = await FarmAddonModel.query()
+          .where({ farm_id, addon_partner_id })
+          .skipUndefined();


.skipUndefined() is a nice inclusion and should probably be our default!

Duncan-Brain · 2025-02-04T01:45:47Z

Okay, I wasn't aware Loic decided on a design to definitely include org uuid yet. And thought we were doing the status thing.

How would you like the response @kathyavini and @SayakaOno

id agnostic (like default animal type and breed) - if we go this route we can consider sending name of addon_partner instead of id:

// req includes addon_partner_id
["dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd", "dsfasfdsa-asdfsf-asdfdsa"]

// req does not include addon_partner_id
{
"Ensemble Scientific": ["dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd", "dsfasfdsa-asdfsf-asdfdsa"],
"No Integrating Partner": ["dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd", "dsfasfdsa-asdfsf-asdfdsa"]
}

or using using table ids

// req includes addon_partner_id
["dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd", "dsfasfdsa-asdfsf-asdfdsa"]

// req does not include addon_partner_id
{
"1": ["dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd", "dsfasfdsa-asdfsf-asdfdsa"],
"0": ["dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd", "dsfasfdsa-asdfsf-asdfdsa"]
}

or plain rows

// req includes addon_partner_id
[{org_uuid: "dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd"}, {org_uuid: "dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd"}]

// req does not include addon_partner_id
[{addon_partner_id: 1,  org_uuid: "dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd"}, {addon_partner_id: 0, org_uuid: "dsfdsf-adfsadf-asdfsf-adfsd"}]

My preference would be the first to continue our efforts to keep frontend id agnostic and send the name (analogous to "translation key") instead.

kathyavini · 2025-02-04T18:44:37Z

It was discussed at Tech Daily today (Feb 4th) but for our records, it was decided we like option (3) above -- array of objects which correspond to the actual record shape 🙏

Duncan-Brain

Okay it should be updated! We were so into formatting into entities on backend that I thought for sure we were sticking with it. My new favorite is option 3.

kathyavini

Looks great. I'll merge as soon as the ~~integration TypeScript fix is merged~~ backend Docker container fix is merged (sorry for the moving target 🙇)

Duncan-Brain added 2 commits January 28, 2025 19:28

LF-4694 Add basic endpoint without auth

d3fafee

LF-4694 Add scope check

ac2715e

Duncan-Brain marked this pull request as ready for review January 29, 2025 00:45

Duncan-Brain requested review from a team as code owners January 29, 2025 00:45

Duncan-Brain requested review from antsgar and kathyavini and removed request for a team January 29, 2025 00:45

Duncan-Brain added 2 commits January 31, 2025 09:45

Merge branch 'integration' into LF-4694-create-get-endpoint-to-check-…

4701f32

…if-an-ensemble-addon-exists-b

LF-4694 Allow addon_partner_id to not be specified

b244a24

kathyavini reviewed Jan 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

LF-4694 Update add farm addon to higher order function to match other

eb191cd

Duncan-Brain requested a review from kathyavini January 31, 2025 18:04

Merge branch 'integration' into LF-4694-create-get-endpoint-to-check-…

acf2a96

…if-an-ensemble-addon-exists-b

kathyavini reviewed Feb 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

LF-4694 Return plain rows

f8771a4

Duncan-Brain commented Feb 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

Duncan-Brain requested a review from kathyavini February 5, 2025 16:08

antsgar approved these changes Feb 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

kathyavini approved these changes Feb 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

kathyavini added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 6, 2025

Merged via the queue into integration with commit 0c3963c Feb 6, 2025
4 of 5 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Lf 4694 create get endpoint to check if an ensemble addon exists b #3671

Lf 4694 create get endpoint to check if an ensemble addon exists b #3671

Duncan-Brain commented Jan 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kathyavini commented Jan 29, 2025

Duncan-Brain commented Jan 31, 2025

kathyavini commented Jan 31, 2025

kathyavini Jan 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Duncan-Brain Jan 31, 2025

kathyavini Jan 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

SayakaOno Jan 31, 2025

antsgar Feb 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kathyavini left a comment

kathyavini Feb 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Duncan-Brain commented Feb 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kathyavini commented Feb 4, 2025

Duncan-Brain left a comment

kathyavini left a comment •

edited

Loading

		@@ -54,85 +54,87 @@ const Prices = React.lazy(() => import('../containers/Insights/Prices'));
		const ExpiredTokenScreen = React.lazy(() => import('../containers/ExpiredTokenScreen'));

Lf 4694 create get endpoint to check if an ensemble addon exists b #3671

Lf 4694 create get endpoint to check if an ensemble addon exists b #3671

Conversation

Duncan-Brain commented Jan 29, 2025 • edited Loading

kathyavini commented Jan 29, 2025

Duncan-Brain commented Jan 31, 2025

kathyavini commented Jan 31, 2025

kathyavini Jan 31, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Duncan-Brain Jan 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kathyavini Jan 31, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SayakaOno Jan 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

antsgar Feb 4, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kathyavini left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kathyavini Feb 3, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Duncan-Brain commented Feb 4, 2025 • edited Loading

kathyavini commented Feb 4, 2025

Duncan-Brain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kathyavini left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Duncan-Brain commented Jan 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kathyavini Jan 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kathyavini Jan 31, 2025 •

edited

Loading

antsgar Feb 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kathyavini Feb 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Duncan-Brain commented Feb 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kathyavini left a comment •

edited

Loading