This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 4, 2024. It is now read-only.
Issue 460 - datestartswith relational operator behavior on number expression #589
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,12 +1,19 @@ | ||
| import { SingleColumnSyntaxTree } from 'dash-table/syntax-tree'; | ||
| import { ColumnType } from 'dash-table/components/Table/props'; | ||
| import { SingleColumnConfig } from 'dash-table/syntax-tree/SingleColumnSyntaxTree'; | ||
| import { RelationalOperator } from 'dash-table/syntax-tree/lexeme/relational'; | ||
| import { LexemeType } from 'core/syntax-tree/lexicon'; | ||
|
|
||
| const COLUMN_ANY: SingleColumnConfig = { | ||
| id: 'a', | ||
| type: ColumnType.Any | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| const COLUMN_DATE: SingleColumnConfig = { | ||
| id: 'a', | ||
| type: ColumnType.Datetime | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| const COLUMN_NUMERIC: SingleColumnConfig = { | ||
| id: 'a', | ||
| type: ColumnType.Numeric | ||
|
|
@@ -110,9 +117,119 @@ describe('Single Column Syntax Tree', () => { | |
| const tree = new SingleColumnSyntaxTree('"1"', COLUMN_TEXT); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(tree.isValid).to.equal(true); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: 1 })).to.equal(true); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: 2 })).to.equal(false); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '1' })).to.equal(true); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '2' })).to.equal(false); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(tree.toQueryString()).to.equal('{a} contains "1"'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| ['1975', '"1975"'].forEach(value => { | ||
| it(`can be expression '${value}' with datetime column type`, () => { | ||
| const tree = new SingleColumnSyntaxTree(value, COLUMN_DATE); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: 1975 })).to.equal(true); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '1975' })).to.equal(true); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '1975-01' })).to.equal(true); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '1975-01-01' })).to.equal(true); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '1975-01-01 01:01:01' })).to.equal(true); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: 1976 })).to.equal(false); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '1976' })).to.equal(false); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '1976-01' })).to.equal(false); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '1976-01-01' })).to.equal(false); | ||
| expect(tree.evaluate({ a: '1976-01-01 01:01:01' })).to.equal(false); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| [ | ||
| { type: COLUMN_UNDEFINED, name: 'undefined' }, | ||
| { type: COLUMN_ANY, name: 'any' }, | ||
| { type: COLUMN_TEXT, name: 'text' } | ||
| ].forEach(({ type, name }) => { | ||
| it(`returns the correct relational operator lexeme for '${name}' column type`, () => { | ||
| const tree = new SingleColumnSyntaxTree('1', type); | ||
| const structure = tree.toStructure(); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(tree.toQueryString()).to.equal('{a} contains 1'); | ||
| expect(structure).to.not.equal(null); | ||
|
|
||
| if (structure) { | ||
| expect(structure.value).to.equal(RelationalOperator.Contains); | ||
| expect(structure.subType).to.equal(RelationalOperator.Contains); | ||
| expect(structure.type).to.equal(LexemeType.RelationalOperator); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(structure.left).to.not.equal(null); | ||
| if (structure.left) { | ||
| expect(structure.left.type).to.equal(LexemeType.Expression); | ||
| expect(structure.left.subType).to.equal('field'); | ||
| expect(structure.left.value).to.equal('a'); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| expect(structure.right).to.not.equal(null); | ||
| if (structure.right) { | ||
| expect(structure.right.type).to.equal(LexemeType.Expression); | ||
| expect(structure.right.subType).to.equal('value'); | ||
| expect(structure.right.value).to.equal(1); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Without the change to the single column syntax tree |
||
|
|
||
| it(`returns the correct relational operator lexeme for 'date' column type`, () => { | ||
| const tree = new SingleColumnSyntaxTree('1975', COLUMN_DATE); | ||
| const structure = tree.toStructure(); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(tree.toQueryString()).to.equal('{a} datestartswith 1975'); | ||
| expect(structure).to.not.equal(null); | ||
|
|
||
| if (structure) { | ||
| expect(structure.value).to.equal(RelationalOperator.DateStartsWith); | ||
| expect(structure.subType).to.equal(RelationalOperator.DateStartsWith); | ||
| expect(structure.type).to.equal(LexemeType.RelationalOperator); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(structure.left).to.not.equal(null); | ||
| if (structure.left) { | ||
| expect(structure.left.type).to.equal(LexemeType.Expression); | ||
| expect(structure.left.subType).to.equal('field'); | ||
| expect(structure.left.value).to.equal('a'); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| expect(structure.right).to.not.equal(null); | ||
| if (structure.right) { | ||
| expect(structure.right.type).to.equal(LexemeType.Expression); | ||
| expect(structure.right.subType).to.equal('value'); | ||
| expect(structure.right.value).to.equal(1975); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it(`returns the correct relational operator lexeme for 'numeric' column type`, () => { | ||
| const tree = new SingleColumnSyntaxTree('1', COLUMN_NUMERIC); | ||
| const structure = tree.toStructure(); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(tree.toQueryString()).to.equal('{a} = 1'); | ||
| expect(structure).to.not.equal(null); | ||
|
|
||
| if (structure) { | ||
| expect(structure.value).to.equal(RelationalOperator.Equal); | ||
| expect(structure.subType).to.equal(RelationalOperator.Equal); | ||
| expect(structure.type).to.equal(LexemeType.RelationalOperator); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(structure.left).to.not.equal(null); | ||
| if (structure.left) { | ||
| expect(structure.left.type).to.equal(LexemeType.Expression); | ||
| expect(structure.left.subType).to.equal('field'); | ||
| expect(structure.left.value).to.equal('a'); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| expect(structure.right).to.not.equal(null); | ||
| if (structure.right) { | ||
| expect(structure.right.type).to.equal(LexemeType.Expression); | ||
| expect(structure.right.subType).to.equal('value'); | ||
| expect(structure.right.value).to.equal(1); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
isn't this double
.toString?But also: should we be trying to use the column formatting here? What if you have prices formatted with 2-digit decimals and you want to match all even-dollar values, with
contains '.00'?Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Getting access to formatting from here would be difficult.
I think you're right, I got carried away by the number case for dates. Deviating too much from what was agreed upon when we last went through filtering. Will revert the
containschanges and focus on (1) datestartswith and (2) the lexeme bugThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK - certainly understand that this would be tough, and it's a weird edge case so I'm happy to ignore for now. Let's make an issue for it though, if it doesn't already exist. If a user is filtering as a string, they would expect the string used in the filter to be the one they see.