Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: platform #4680

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2025
Merged

fix: platform #4680

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions src/views/assets/Platform/PlatformCreateUpdate.vue
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -135,8 +135,8 @@ export default {
return new Promise((resolve, reject) => resolve(true))
},
async setConstraints() {
const category = this.$route.query.category
const type = this.$route.query.type
const category = this.$route.query._category
const type = this.$route.query._type
const url = `/api/v1/assets/categories/constraints/?category=${category}&type=${type}`
const constraints = await this.$axios.get(url)
this.defaultOptions = constraints
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The difference between this.$route.query.category and _category is that the first one refers to route query variables while the second one does not.

However, there aren't any known bugs in this specific code snippet provided. It seems perfectly valid JavaScript code.

If we consider adding more complexity by introducing asynchronous methods or changing how dependencies work, it may become a bit challenging or unnecessary as per the current requirements of the question; but without further context regarding what you'd like added/modified about this snippet, I'll keep it simple for brevity:

  • The existing structure is well-formed with no apparent issues or inefficiencies noted.

  • As an optimization suggestion, since get(url) will always get responses from the server regardless of whether a constraint exists, perhaps add a condition where if there's data on the server already (constraints != null) return its response instead of making another API call to fetch again? This can save computation time when fetching assets which don't require these extra constraints.

In summary:

  • No immediate errors were detected.
    • Slight change needed (to handle constraints data differently).

As requested, here are my English explanations:

  • Functionality: Both functions perform similar tasks within their respective namespaces: they make a GET request according to the route parameters (_query) or path variables. They use async function syntax and promise chaining for handling asynchronous operations asynchronously rather than blocking user interfaces.

  • Improvements suggested:

    1. **Optimization/Suggestion**: In certain scenarios (not specified), could possibly optimize by returning `constraints.response` instead of repeatedly sending the request.
    • However, the initial analysis suggests everything works fine as intended considering the limited information given. If additional complexities need to be handled, the scope could grow beyond just this snippet.

Expand Down