refactor: Remove one unnecessary database query

[martinlehoux]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.13%. Comparing base (9ccb0f9) to head (59b7b83).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #931      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.19%   88.13%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          32       32              
  Lines        1008     1003       -5     
  Branches      105      104       -1     
==========================================
- Hits          889      884       -5     
  Misses        101      101              
  Partials       18       18              

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[auvipy]

we will need more detail and context before moving forward with this. also tests are necessary

[martinlehoux]

Hi, sorry if I did not respect some process. I was browsing through this code and saw this inefficiency. Being a refactor, I don't what test I should add, the expected behaviour is exactly the same as before, but removes an extra database query

[auvipy]

can you share some screenshots please as starter?

[cclauss]

Looking at the original code, I would say that the minimum tests should assert the result where:

1. the happy path is taken (i.e., no exceptions are raised).
2. cls.DoesNotExist is raised.
3. MultipleObjectsReturned is raised.

Please use those tests to ensure that identical results are returned with the current code and the proposed code.

[martinlehoux]

Do you think class TestDuplicatesMixin is not sufficient today? I should improve this one test?