Enforce unique constraints for 0.33 #8645
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PR Summary
This PR implements unique constraint enforcement and reorganizes upgrade commands for version 0.33. Here's a concise summary of the key changes:
- Moved 0.33 upgrade commands out of 0.32 directory into dedicated 0.33 folder for better organization
- Added unique constraint enforcement for company domain names and person email addresses
- Implemented flexible command flags for controlling unique constraint enforcement (--person, --company, --view-field, --view-sort)
- Added verbose logging option (--verbose) for detailed constraint enforcement tracking
- Enhanced error handling to continue processing remaining workspaces if one fails during upgrade
The changes appear well-structured and maintain data integrity during the upgrade process.
9 file(s) reviewed, 3 comment(s)
Edit PR Review Bot Settings | Greptile
| await this.enforceUniqueConstraintsCommand.executeActiveWorkspacesCommand( | ||
| passedParam, | ||
| { | ||
| ...options, | ||
| company: true, | ||
| person: true, | ||
| viewField: false, | ||
| viewSort: false, | ||
| }, | ||
| workspaceIds, | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
logic: Consider error handling here - if unique constraint enforcement fails, workspace metadata sync and search vector updates may be in an inconsistent state
| @WorkspaceIsUnique() | ||
| */ | ||
| [DOMAIN_NAME_FIELD_NAME]?: LinksMetadata; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
logic: Enabling unique constraint on domainName could cause issues with existing duplicate data. Make sure the migration handles existing duplicates gracefully.
| @WorkspaceIsUnique() | ||
| [EMAILS_FIELD_NAME]: EmailsMetadata; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
logic: This unique constraint may cause issues with soft-deleted records - ensure the uniqueness check excludes soft-deleted entries
| @@ -25,7 +25,9 @@ export function WorkspaceIndex( | |||
| ); | |||
|
|
|||
| metadataArgsStorage.addIndexes({ | |||
| name: `IDX_${generateDeterministicIndexName([ | |||
| name: `IDX_${ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if we want that. I added IDX_UNIQUE so that we could differentiate field-level unicity constraints from the indexes that are managed directly. It probably doesn't matter a lot in either case
Context