feat: Add filtering capabilities in events change log [DHIS2-18012] #19268
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
...-tracker/src/main/java/org/hisp/dhis/tracker/export/event/EventChangeLogOperationParams.java
Fixed
Show fixed
Hide fixed
...e-tracker/src/main/java/org/hisp/dhis/tracker/export/event/HibernateEventChangeLogStore.java
Dismissed
Show dismissed
Hide dismissed
larshelge
approved these changes
Nov 23, 2024
| @@ -40,20 +42,30 @@ | |||
| public class EventChangeLogOperationParams { | |||
|
|
|||
| private Order order; | |||
| private Map.Entry<String, QueryFilter> filterEntry; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it makes sense to make this field a Pair?
Right now I don't understand why we have a Map.Entry here but in the builder we have a filterMap method.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I just didn't want to use an external library, but I agree conceptually probably makes more sense to use Pair instead of Map.Entry.
...api/src/main/java/org/hisp/dhis/webapi/controller/tracker/export/RequestParamsValidator.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...e-tracker/src/main/java/org/hisp/dhis/tracker/export/event/HibernateEventChangeLogStore.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...-tracker/src/main/java/org/hisp/dhis/tracker/export/event/EventChangeLogOperationParams.java
Fixed
Show fixed
Hide fixed
enricocolasante
approved these changes
Nov 25, 2024
| private EventChangeLogOperationParamsBuilder order(Order order) { | ||
| return this; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private EventChangeLogOperationParamsBuilder filterMap(Pair<String, QueryFilter> filterMap) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| private EventChangeLogOperationParamsBuilder filterMap(Pair<String, QueryFilter> filterMap) { | |
| private EventChangeLogOperationParamsBuilder filter(Pair<String, QueryFilter> filter) { |
|
| private EventChangeLogOperationParamsBuilder order(Order order) { | ||
| return this; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private EventChangeLogOperationParamsBuilder filter(Pair<String, QueryFilter> filter) { |
Check notice
Code scanning / CodeQL
Useless parameter Note
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR introduces filtering for change logs. These filters differ slightly from the ones we currently use:
Another key difference is that while our current filters are UID based, these new filters are string based.
Although the only supported operator is
eq, I’ve retained the filter format [field]:[operator]:[filter] used in other endpoints. This way, if we need to support additional operators in the future, it won’t require a breaking change.validateFilter(String, Set<String>)is used only for event change logs, but it will be used for attributes as soon as we refactor those change logs, that's why I added it toRequestParamsValidatorNote: ACL validation for data elements is not yet implemented. I will address this in a separate ticket once we decide how data sharing validation on data elements should be handled.