Bug: Ensure HABTM associations are not incorrectly labeled n+1 #581
Conversation
This file contains 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
Prior to this commit, unless your HABTM join table excluded the `id` primary key column, it would be erroneously marked as a potential n+1 query. Other HABTM queries that had join tables _without_ an `id` column were properly ignored. This exclusion _seems_ to be a side-effect of excluding objects that don't have primary keys/id columns in an effort to ignore non-persisted objects (stemming from [this commit](https://github.com/flyerhzm/bullet/blob/2c8a6d26f4a11bc8b3af5ff7da815401049732d4/lib/bullet/detector/n_plus_one_query.rb#L37)). This commit, instead, explicitly ignores HABTM models when checking for potential objects that could have a n+1 impact since they are join tables that typically aren't queried for specifically but instead are joined on.
|
@flyerhzm Wondering if I could get your review on this? |
|
@tbro-evi looks good to me, thanks. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #546
Prior to this commit, unless your HABTM join table excluded the
idprimary key column, it would be erroneously marked as a potential n+1
query. Other HABTM queries that had join tables without an
idcolumnwere properly ignored. This exclusion seems to be a side-effect of
excluding objects that don't have primary keys/id columns in an effort
to ignore non-persisted objects (stemming from this commit).
This commit, instead, explicitly ignores HABTM models when checking for potential
objects that could have a n+1 impact since they are join tables that
typically aren't queried for specifically but instead are joined on.