Skip to content

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

joehan
Copy link
Contributor

@joehan joehan commented Jul 30, 2025

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a 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

  1. 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.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a 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.

Comment on lines +34 to +37
const lastOrderedField = [...fields]
.reverse()
.find((f) => f.fieldPath !== "__name__" && f.order);
const defaultDirection = lastOrderedField?.order;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

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-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 50.68%. Comparing base (f1c2d21) to head (467d7c2).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/firestore/api.ts 66.66% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
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.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@aalej
Copy link
Contributor

aalej commented Jul 30, 2025

It seems like the issue is still occurring

$ firebase deploy --only firestore --project PROJECT_ID
=== Deploying to 'PROJECT_ID'...

i  deploying firestore
i  firestore: reading indexes from firestore.indexes.json...
i  cloud.firestore: checking firestore.rules for compilation errors...
✔  cloud.firestore: rules file firestore.rules compiled successfully
i  firestore: uploading rules firestore.rules...
i  firestore: deploying indexes...
i  firestore: The following indexes are defined in your project but are not present in your firestore indexes file:
        (collection10) -- (field4,VECTOR<1536>) 
        (collection10) -- (field1,ASCENDING) (field2,ASCENDING) (field3,ASCENDING) (field4,VECTOR<1536>) 
        (collection10) -- (field5,ASCENDING) (field4,VECTOR<1536>) 
✔ Would you like to delete these indexes? Selecting no will continue the rest of the deployment. No

Error: Request to https://firestore.googleapis.com/v1/projects/PROJECT_ID/databases/(default)/collectionGroups/collection10/indexes had HTTP Error: 409, index already exists

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Still encountering duplicate index issue with 14.11.1
3 participants