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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
[CDX-472] Remove the limit of 100 for browse/search load events #457
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[CDX-472] Remove the limit of 100 for browse/search load events #457
Changes from all commits
47ed43e7fdf0d9File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Jump to
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggestion: The array size of 150 works, but it is arbitrary and does not document why 150 was chosen (it is just "greater than 100"). Consider using a named constant or at least a comment like
// deliberately over the old 100-item capto make the intent obvious to future readers, especially since the old tests used 1000 which made the intent equally clear.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggestion: In the new
trackBrowseResultsLoadedtest,itemsis constructed as objects withitem_idkeys (already snake_case), and the assertion checksdeep.equal(items). This works coincidentally becausehelpers.toSnakeCaseKeysis a no-op on already-snake_case keys. The assertion does not exercise the camelCase→snake_case transformation path. This is a minor coverage gap — not a blocker, but worth noting since the previous deleted test (which usedoptionalParameters) did cover more of the function's behaviour (section, result_count, result_page, etc.).Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.