-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
Fixed an issue with orderless fields in firestore indexes #8913
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Summary of Changes
Hello @joehan, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request addresses a bug in how Firestore indexes are processed, specifically when dealing with __name__
fields that might follow fields without explicit ordering, such as vector fields. The core change ensures that the correct default direction for these __name__
fields is determined by looking for the last ordered field in the index, preventing incorrect filtering and improving the accuracy of index processing.
Highlights
- Firestore Index Processing Logic: I've updated the
FirestoreApi.processIndexes
method to correctly handle Firestore indexes where fields might not have an explicit order, such as vector fields. This ensures that the__name__
field is properly filtered based on the last ordered field in the index. - New Test Case for Index Filtering: I've added a new test case in
src/firestore/indexes.spec.ts
to validate the fix, specifically ensuring that__name__
fields are correctly filtered out when the preceding field is a vector field.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code Review
The pull request correctly addresses an issue where Firestore indexes with orderless fields (like vector fields) were not handled properly when filtering implicit __name__
fields. The logic is now more robust, searching for the last field that actually has an order. The addition of a new test case for this specific scenario is great. I've added one suggestion to improve the performance of the new logic by avoiding unnecessary array creation and reversal.
const lastOrderedField = [...fields] | ||
.reverse() | ||
.find((f) => f.fieldPath !== "__name__" && f.order); | ||
const defaultDirection = lastOrderedField?.order; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While this implementation is correct, it can be made more efficient by avoiding the creation of a new reversed array for each index. A simple for
loop iterating backwards would be more performant and avoid unnecessary memory allocation, especially for indexes with many fields.
let defaultDirection: types.Order | undefined;
// Find the last field with an order, iterating backwards from the second to last field.
for (let i = fields.length - 2; i >= 0; i--) {
if (fields[i].order) {
defaultDirection = fields[i].order;
break;
}
}
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8913 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 52.18% 50.68% -1.50%
==========================================
Files 418 496 +78
Lines 30694 32880 +2186
Branches 6348 6831 +483
==========================================
+ Hits 16018 16666 +648
- Misses 13234 14746 +1512
- Partials 1442 1468 +26 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
It seems like the issue is still occurring
|
Description
Fixes #8910 - turns out some indexes don't have orders, so we need to look at the last index with an order when filtering.
I had Gemini work on this one, but the solution looks correct to me.