MARXAN - 291 Users should be able to upload shapefiles of scenario cost surfaces - update cost in database #206
Conversation
|
This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more). marxan – ./app🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/vizzuality1/marxan/6QvgscHB98LU84zrkn7pGKj2DL64 marxan-storybook – ./app🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/vizzuality1/marxan-storybook/FMbzhVd1qxRiJPJytoLk453mQAMt |
kgajowy
force-pushed
the
api/MARXAN-410-cost-surface-update-db
branch
from
19cbee5
to
5c175c4
Compare
kgajowy
changed the title
| puCostDataRepo.query(` | ||
| select spud.scenario_id, spucd."cost", spucd.output_results_data_id as pu_id from scenarios_pu_data as spud join scenarios_pu_cost_data as spucd on (spud."id" = spucd.scenarios_pu_data_id) | ||
| where spud.scenario_id = '${scenarioId}' | ||
| `), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is the reason behind using a raw query?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For a sake of simplicity and missing relations :(
| @RelationId((spud: ScenariosPutCostDataGeo) => spud.scenariosPlanningUnit) | ||
| scenariosPuDataId!: string; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure if it will be handled correctly, AFAIR it was always an issue with RelationId and no Column decorator
| @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ | |||
| import { flatten, Injectable } from '@nestjs/common'; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
though the end result is the same, I think this is a more-or-less internal TypeORM function that happens to be exported - should we use the lodash one for consistency?
| `ALTER TABLE "scenarios_pu_cost_data" ADD "scenarios_pu_data_id" uuid`, | ||
| ); | ||
| await queryRunner.query( | ||
| `ALTER TABLE "scenarios_pu_cost_data" ADD CONSTRAINT "FK_21454fad6e954ba771262974ae7" FOREIGN KEY ("scenarios_pu_data_id") REFERENCES "scenarios_pu_data"("id") ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I imagine you have discussed this with Alicia - just cross checking that the absence of cascades here is intentional. I can't think of a reason to leave cost data behind in case we delete scenario PUs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually I missed it - thanks for catching this out!
fixed in af3773c
commit (1) - adjust code definition to existing model; migrate
costas per @aagm request.commit (2) - execute update