[WIP] challenges and dits #66
Conversation
|
There might be some minor things to correct like:
I just didn't feel like playing with making it perfect so much before any refactorization/DRYing. |
| LET us = (FOR u IN users FILTER u.username == @creatorUsername RETURN u) | ||
| // create the ditTag (if dit, tag and creator exist) | ||
| LET ${ditType}Tag = (FOR d IN ds FOR t IN ts FOR u IN us FILTER u._id == d.creator | ||
| INSERT MERGE({ _from: d._id, _to: t._id, creator: u._id }, @ditTag) IN ${ditType}Tags RETURN KEEP(NEW, 'created'))[0] || { } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
name of the collection can (and should) be provided with placeholder @@ditTypeTags (two @ refer to collection name)
and then const params = { '@ditTypeTags': ditType + 'Tags' }
also above for ${ditType}.
This won't work for variable names, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wrote in the comment that it is not done yet.
| e.code = 404; | ||
| e.missing = []; | ||
|
|
||
| [`${ditType}`, 'tag', 'creator'].forEach((potentialMissing) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
`${}` is not necessary here. (also on line 60)
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
votes.to should include 'challenges' here in this file.
(i can't comment directly there)
|
|
||
| module.exports = { | ||
| get: { | ||
| withMyTags: route(['query.filter.withMyTags']), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason to keep these as separate code from goto.ideas?
I imagine that these are and will stay very similar (deciding based on query string).
|
|
||
| const validate = require('./validate-by-schema'); | ||
|
|
||
| const del = validate('deleteChallengeTag'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will json-schemata for these be getting different from other dit-tags in the future? Is there a reason to keep them separate?
|
|
||
| module.exports = { | ||
| get: validate('getChallenge'), | ||
| getChallengesCommentedBy: validate('getChallengesCommentedBy'), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, would it be perhaps worth having these generalized as getDitsCommentedBy? These schemata seem to not be ditType specific.
| properties: { | ||
| title, | ||
| detail, | ||
| ditType |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how does this value appear in the req.body? It's new to me.
| static async random(ditType, { limit }) { | ||
| const ditCollection = ditType + 's'; | ||
| const query = ` | ||
| FOR ${ditType} IN @@ditCollection |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it necessary to make the query (and other queries) variable like this?
Perhaps it would be more straightforward and secure to use dit instead of ${ditType} in this query?
No description provided.