Champ related cleanups and refactoring #10711
Conversation
tchak
force-pushed
the
refactor-champ-related-cleanups
branch
from
21c621f to
f342610
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10711 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 84.58% 84.58%
=======================================
Files 1118 1118
Lines 24770 24753 -17
Branches 4609 4611 +2
=======================================
- Hits 20952 20938 -14
+ Misses 3818 3815 -3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
tchak
force-pushed
the
refactor-champ-related-cleanups
branch
3 times, most recently
from
82bc57b to
94bd4de
Compare
app/models/attestation_template.rb
Outdated
| champs_by_stable_id = dossier.revision.types_de_champ.index_by { "tdc#{_1.stable_id}" } | ||
|
|
||
| used_tags.filter_map do |used_tag| | ||
| corresponding_champ = champs_by_stable_id[used_tag] | ||
| corresponding_type_de_champ = champs_by_stable_id[used_tag] | ||
|
|
||
| if corresponding_champ && corresponding_champ.blank? | ||
| corresponding_champ | ||
| if corresponding_type_de_champ && dossier.project_champ(corresponding_type_de_champ, nil).blank? | ||
| corresponding_type_de_champ | ||
| end | ||
| end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ça me chagrine ce changement, on renvoyait des champs, maintenant des types de champs. isolé dans ce seul commit, je crains que nous cassions un appel venant d'un appelant, je sais pas dire si le code appelant est testé ac ce cas, mais se serait top d'ajouter un test la dessus non (ou clarifier le nommage)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Il y a un seul usage de ce code dans l'app et on s'en sert seulement des méthodes libelle et private? sur les objets renvoyés
tchak
force-pushed
the
refactor-champ-related-cleanups
branch
2 times, most recently
from
051ba86 to
79c9784
Compare
7b4d1e4
Suspect IssuesThis pull request was deployed and Sentry observed the following issues:
Did you find this useful? React with a 👍 or 👎 |
No description provided.