-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
In-memory order updater #5872
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
In-memory order updater #5872
Conversation
27f19a8
to
340032c
Compare
d22210b
to
d244646
Compare
Just making a note that we are waiting on Alistair to rebase #6026 against this. @AlistairNorman could you just make sure that gets done at some point before the 20th? That way we can have it for our next session. |
a3bb1fc
to
06e3a2a
Compare
9fd5c8d
to
27e4988
Compare
4a0f623
to
90f5420
Compare
While working on the in-memory updater in solidusio#5872, we found the need to change how item totals were being calculated, so that we could mark adjustments for destruction without actually destroying them, while still keeping tax adjustments intact. This change is completely backwards-compatible with the current OrderUpdater, so to reduce the scope of our PR, we wanted to make this change separately. Since the OrderUpdater is already very large, this helps reduce its responsibilities and makes it easier to test this behaviour. We don't see it as necessary to make this a configurable class, but this change leaves that option open in the future. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alistair Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
While working on the in-memory updater in solidusio#5872, we found the need to change how item totals were being calculated, so that we could mark adjustments for destruction without actually destroying them, while still keeping tax adjustments intact. This change is completely backwards-compatible with the current OrderUpdater, so to reduce the scope of our PR, we wanted to make this change separately. Since the OrderUpdater is already very large, this helps reduce its responsibilities and makes it easier to test this behaviour. We don't see it as necessary to make this a configurable class, but this change leaves that option open in the future. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alistair Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
While working on the in-memory updater in solidusio#5872, we found the need to change how item totals were being calculated, so that we could mark adjustments for destruction without actually destroying them, while still keeping tax adjustments intact. This change is completely backwards-compatible with the current OrderUpdater, so to reduce the scope of our PR, we wanted to make this change separately. Since the OrderUpdater is already very large, this helps reduce its responsibilities and makes it easier to test this behaviour. We don't see it as necessary to make this a configurable class, but this change leaves that option open in the future. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alistair Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
While working on the in-memory updater in solidusio#5872, we found the need to change how item totals were being calculated, so that we could mark adjustments for destruction without actually destroying them, while still keeping tax adjustments intact. This change is completely backwards-compatible with the current OrderUpdater, so to reduce the scope of our PR, we wanted to make this change separately. Since the OrderUpdater is already very large, this helps reduce its responsibilities and makes it easier to test this behaviour. We don't see it as necessary to make this a configurable class, but this change leaves that option open in the future. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alistair Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
I don't know if there's all that much customizing people will perform on this class, but it's easy enough to make it configurable just in case.
To support the in-memory order updater, we want adjustments to be modified without writing to the database immediately. We added `autosave: true` in the association on line_items ensures that the adjustment amount will be saved with the line_item, or by extension the order when it is eventually persisted by the order updater. The tests for the OrderTaxation have been updated to use `size` instead of `count` to ensure an in-memory reported count/size. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Noah Silvera <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alistair Norman <[email protected]>
Instead of actually destroying adjustments in the OrderTaxation class, we can just mark them for removal. This will allow them to be removed when the order is persisted, instead of being removed during the recalculate process. We're also improving our OrderUpdater tests to better verify our changes maintain the existing behaviour. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alistair Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Senem <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
When updating our order adjustment totals, we want to ensure we skip any adjustments that have been marked for destruction. We also need to ensure Order#adjustments has autosave enabled so that the marked for destruction adjustments are removed when we persist the order.
https://github.com/sds/db-query-matchers Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Nick Van Doorn <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Noah Silvera <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
In subsequent commits we'll ensure that this can update orders in memory, without persisting changes using manipulative DB queries. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alistair Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Nick Van Doorn <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Noah Silvera <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
We want our new in-memory order updater to be able to persist or not persist changes to the order record. WORK IN PROGRESS This is a first step in ensuring we don't need to write to the database using the order updater. Clearly we have more work to do to ensure this functions like the existing updater. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Nick Van Doorn <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Noah Silvera <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]>
This is in service of supporting the InMemoryOrderUpdater's goal to not do database writes.
…atabase writes We have prevented write calls to update the cost and `updated_at` of a shipment, as well as allowed us to conditionally persist item totals, by passing down the `persist` argument to that method. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Update implies that we are persisting the change in Rails, which this method does not do. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]>
Update implies that we are persisting the change in Rails, which this method does not do. Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Senem Soy <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]>
These methods don't persist so it's more accurate to say that they recalculate the total instead of saying that they update it. Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
We want all the methods that might persist data to be called update_ instead of recalculate to be clear that they hit the database. Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
This is calling the recalculate method not update_adjustments. Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
This puts all the update and recalculate methods together. Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Harmony Bouvier <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Chris Todorov <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Tom Van Manen <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Noah Silvera <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Noah Silvera <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Benjamin Willems <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Alistair Norman <[email protected]>
Includes a small refactor to the internal recalculate method to simplify the code while maintaining the existing logic around only persisting when the values have changed. We'll use this persist flag to eventually only save changes to the DB when requested. Allowing us to use this adjuster to update the order in-memory. Co-authored-by: An Stewart <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Nick Van Doorn <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sofia Besenski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
Similar to the previous change. We're now passing the persist flag down to all promotion order adjusters. This does not implement the logic within the individual adjuster classes to skip persistance when required, only ensures the flag is pass down from our in-memory order updater. Co-Authored-By: Adam Mueller <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Andrew Stewart <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Harmony Evangelina <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Jared Norman <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Kendra Riga <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: Senem Soy <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: benjamin wil <[email protected]>
9ecbd13
to
92fc679
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5872 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.42% 88.76% -3.67%
==========================================
Files 389 831 +442
Lines 8005 18102 +10097
==========================================
+ Hits 7399 16069 +8670
- Misses 606 2033 +1427 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Summary
This pull request proposes a replacement to the default
Spree::OrderUpdater
that has new and improved functionality:There may be some beneficial side-effects that come out of this new order updater implementation:
We don't expect this to be the default order updater implementation in the next minor version of Solidus, but we would like to propose it as the default for the next major version of Solidus.
Note: The commits on this pull request have a long list of co-authors, as the Super Good team is approaching this as a collaborative mob programming exercise.
Milestones
For this order updater, we intend to achieve the following during updates:
We appreciate that there is a lot of complexity to achieving these goals (dealing with active promotions, for example).
Notes
Spree::OrderUpdater
makes on a typical recalculate.Checklist
Check out our PR guidelines for more details.
The following are mandatory for all PRs:
The following are not always needed: