Conversation
bwees
requested review from
danieldietzler and
shenlong-tanwen
as code owners
| await assetEditRepo.replaceAll(asset.id, [ | ||
| { | ||
| action: AssetEditAction.Crop, | ||
| parameters: { x: 50, y: 60, width: 150, height: 250 }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't actually an update. I think you should do a db.update(...) type query that updates the existing record and verify that the update comes across. What you are doing here is technically a delete & re-create, which will make a new record with a new uuid. It's fine for the service to always do a replace, but we should test and verify that updating a record will still be detected and synced.
| { | ||
| ack: expect.any(String), | ||
| data: { | ||
| assetId: asset.id, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like you haven't updated this to include editId yet
| await ctx.assertSyncIsComplete(auth, [SyncRequestType.AssetEditsV1]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should detect and sync deleted asset edits', async () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Related to this, can you add at least one test in test/.../audit.database.spec.ts that verifies that when an asset is deleted (which should cascade delete the asset edits) that no audit records are created?
bwees
force-pushed
the
feat/mobile-edit-2-server-sync-entity
branch
3 times, most recently
from
60b39f5 to
7fc55f9
Compare
bwees
force-pushed
the
feat/mobile-edit-2-server-sync-entity
branch
from
7fc55f9 to
68ca7cd
Compare
2 participants
Description
Adds edit sync entity to server