Skip to content

SF-3964 Fix performance issues loading checking questions - #4197

Open
Nateowami wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
fix/checking-question-load-performance
Open

Nateowami wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
fix/checking-question-load-performance

Conversation

@Nateowami

@Nateowami Nateowami commented Oct 16, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

This change is Reviewable

@Nateowami
Nateowami marked this pull request as draft October 16, 2026 22:42
@Nateowami
Nateowami deployed to screenshot_diff October 16, 2026 22:48 — with GitHub Actions Active
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Oct 16, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96970% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81.22%. Comparing base (7c55eea) to head (2964e9e).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on master.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...pp/checking/checking/checking-questions.service.ts 94.44% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4197   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.21%   81.22%           
=======================================
  Files         670      670           
  Lines       42912    42922   +10     
  Branches     7105     7112    +7     
=======================================
+ Hits        34853    34863   +10     
- Misses       6894     6910   +16     
+ Partials     1165     1149   -16     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@Nateowami Nateowami changed the title Fix performance issues loading checking questions SF-3964 Fix performance issues loading checking questions Oct 16, 2026
@Nateowami Nateowami added will require testing PR should not be merged until testers confirm testing is complete ai-review-author-sign-off PR author has looked at AI review of change and determined no findings warrant further changes labels Oct 16, 2026
@Nateowami
Nateowami marked this pull request as ready for review October 16, 2026 23:35
@pmachapman
pmachapman self-requested a review October 19, 2026 18:32
@pmachapman pmachapman self-assigned this Oct 19, 2026

@pmachapman pmachapman left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

:lgtm: Just one question!

@pmachapman reviewed 10 files and all commit messages, and made 2 comments.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on Nateowami).


src/SIL.XForge.Scripture/ClientApp/src/app/checking/checking/checking-questions.service.ts line 232 at r1 (raw file):

    const notDeleted: PropertyFilter = { [obj<Answer>().pathStr(a => a.deleted)]: { $ne: true } };
    const ownedByUser: PropertyFilter = { ...notDeleted, [obj<Answer>().pathStr(a => a.ownerRef)]: userId };
    const statusPath: string = obj<Answer>().pathStr(a => a.status);

Should we add indexes to these fields?

Code quote:

    const notDeleted: PropertyFilter = { [obj<Answer>().pathStr(a => a.deleted)]: { $ne: true } };
    const ownedByUser: PropertyFilter = { ...notDeleted, [obj<Answer>().pathStr(a => a.ownerRef)]: userId };
    const statusPath: string = obj<Answer>().pathStr(a => a.status);

@pmachapman pmachapman added ready to test and removed will require testing PR should not be merged until testers confirm testing is complete labels Oct 19, 2026

@pmachapman pmachapman left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@pmachapman made 1 comment and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on Nateowami).


src/SIL.XForge.Scripture/ClientApp/src/app/checking/checking/checking-questions.service.ts line 232 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, pmachapman (Peter Chapman) wrote…

Should we add indexes to these fields?

As discussed, there should be no need for indexes, as the filters that select these are not often used.

This branch was successfully deployed

1 active deployment
screenshot_diff — 2964e9e9 Deployed Oct 16, 2026 by Nateowami via Compare Screenshots #1108
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ai-review-author-sign-off PR author has looked at AI review of change and determined no findings warrant further changes ready to test

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants