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.

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

FEATURE: Make adjustments for missing tethered nodes recursive #5476

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: 9.0
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nezaniel
Copy link
Member

@nezaniel nezaniel commented Feb 21, 2025

This makes the "add missing tethered nodes" adjustment work recursively

Upgrade instructions

none

Review instructions

This also contains a migration to remove duplicate node peer variation events, whose cause was fixed in #4969.
Not super clean as it is a separate concern; tested successfully in a live project

Checklist

  • Code follows the PSR-12 coding style
  • Tests have been created, run and adjusted as needed
  • The PR is created against the 9.0 branch
  • Reviewer - PR Title is brief but complete and starts with FEATURE|TASK|BUGFIX
  • Reviewer - The first section explains the change briefly for change-logs
  • Reviewer - Breaking Changes are marked with !!! and have upgrade-instructions

mhsdesign and others added 3 commits February 21, 2025 17:44
…m:nezaniel/neos-development-collection into recursiveTetheredNodeStructureAdjustments
Copy link
Contributor

@dlubitz dlubitz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me by reading in general. I just left two comments.

@@ -184,4 +184,16 @@ public function migrateCheckpointsToSubscriptionsCommand(string $contentReposito
$eventMigrationService = $this->contentRepositoryRegistry->buildService($contentRepositoryId, $this->eventMigrationServiceFactory);
$eventMigrationService->migrateCheckpointsToSubscriptions($this->outputLine(...));
}

/**
* TODO Explain PLZ
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is an open TODO

Comment on lines +132 to +144
workspaceName: $contentGraph->getWorkspaceName(),
contentStreamId: $contentGraph->getContentStreamId(),
nodeAggregateId: $tetheredNodeAggregateId,
nodeTypeName: $tetheredNodeTypeDefinition->nodeTypeName,
originDimensionSpacePoint: $originDimensionSpacePoint,
succeedingSiblingsForCoverage: InterdimensionalSiblings::fromDimensionSpacePointSetWithoutSucceedingSiblings(
dimensionSpacePointSet: $parentNodeAggregateCoverageByOccupant
),
parentNodeAggregateId: $parentNodeAggregateId,
nodeName: $tetheredNodeTypeDefinition->name,
initialPropertyValues: $defaultProperties,
nodeAggregateClassification: NodeAggregateClassification::CLASSIFICATION_TETHERED,
nodeReferences: SerializedNodeReferences::createEmpty(),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder about the named parameter. I guess this is rather your preferred coding style than actually needed? Not sure if we already discussed this in past, but IMHO we should than.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants