Remove nonsensical user_id filter
#484
Merged
Conversation
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
When checking whether an existing conversation already exists before persisting user conversation details, the `user_id` filter is unnecessary - the `conversation_id` is already unique, and ownership has already been validated in prior steps. This change removes the redundant `user_id` filter from the query.
Contributor
WalkthroughThe lookup for an existing UserConversation in persist_user_conversation_details now filters only by conversation id, not by both id and user_id. Update and create paths remain unchanged, and the session is still committed. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
autonumber
participant Client
participant Endpoint as query.persist_user_conversation_details
participant DB as Database
Client->>Endpoint: persist_user_conversation_details(user_id, conversation_id, ...)
Note over Endpoint: Check existing conversation by id only
Endpoint->>DB: SELECT * FROM UserConversation WHERE id = :conversation_id
alt Found
DB-->>Endpoint: existing_conversation
Note over Endpoint: Update last_used_model/provider, last_message_at, increment message_count
Endpoint->>DB: UPDATE UserConversation SET ...
else Not Found
DB-->>Endpoint: None
Note over Endpoint: Create new UserConversation with provided user_id
Endpoint->>DB: INSERT INTO UserConversation (...)
end
Endpoint->>DB: COMMIT
DB-->>Endpoint: OK
Endpoint-->>Client: Return updated/created details
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR/Issue comments)Type Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/app/endpoints/query.py (2)
83-85: Prefer primary-key load via session.get for clarity and efficiency.Apply:
- existing_conversation = ( - session.query(UserConversation).filter_by(id=conversation_id).first() - ) + existing_conversation = session.get(UserConversation, conversation_id)
100-105: Make updates atomic to prevent lost increments under concurrent requests.Two workers can overwrite message_count or last_message_at. Use a single SQL UPDATE with a DB-side increment and timestamp.
Apply:
- else: - existing_conversation.last_used_model = model - existing_conversation.last_used_provider = provider_id - existing_conversation.last_message_at = datetime.now(UTC) - existing_conversation.message_count += 1 + else: + session.execute( + update(UserConversation) + .where(UserConversation.id == conversation_id) + .values( + last_used_model=model, + last_used_provider=provider_id, + last_message_at=func.now(), + message_count=UserConversation.message_count + 1, + ) + )Add import (outside this hunk):
+from sqlalchemy import update, func
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
💡 Knowledge Base configuration:
- MCP integration is disabled by default for public repositories
- Jira integration is disabled by default for public repositories
- Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories
You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/app/endpoints/query.py(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code graph analysis (1)
src/app/endpoints/query.py (1)
src/models/database/conversations.py (1)
UserConversation(11-36)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
- GitHub Check: build-pr
- GitHub Check: e2e_tests
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/app/endpoints/query.py (1)
83-85: Ensure ownership validation before persisting conversation details
Confirm that every call to persist_user_conversation_details —in src/app/endpoints/query.py (around line 242) and src/app/endpoints/streaming_query.py (around line 652)—occurs only after the user’s ownership of the conversation has been validated.
17 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Description
When checking whether an existing conversation already exists before persisting user conversation details, the
user_idfilter is unnecessary - theconversation_idis already unique, and ownership has already been validated in prior steps.This change removes the redundant
user_idfilter from the query.Inspired by this comment
Type of change
Related Tickets & Documents
Checklist before requesting a review
Testing
Tested manually. User conversations are still persisted correctly. Unit tests are still passing
Summary by CodeRabbit