- As blocking is now reciprocal, we do not need another query, we can
use neo4j-graphql-js magic to query for a BLOCKED relationship between
the postAuthor and the currentUser
- at the moment, we have implemented blocked like we want the
blacklist/whitelistUserContent to be, with the exception that is should
not be both ways. If I blacklist a user's content, they still see my
content in their news feed.
- this was making things more likely to fail from the frontend, we would
need to consider doing a db manipulation for users from the old alpha
who have user.name as null.
- it only protects against someone who bypasses our UI and sends a
message directly to the backend, but if they can do that we have bigger
problems.
- write tests for userMiddleware
- checks the functionality of nodes/locations middleware
- refactor to not allow users to update to remove their name
debatable whether we want that or not, but we do not allow users to
create accounts with no name, so we should be consistent, before we were
using neode to validate this, but we have are removing neode from
production code, so we must validate ourselves
- collate UpdateUser mutations to one
The story of SearchInput.vue throws errors because of line 81, dateTime. What must be included to fix this?
The search results shown by the frontend are sometimes differnt from the response of the backend. It shows no results found though there are results incoming.
Tests are not implemented yet.
- start refactoring
- locations does not have any automated tests, which makes it more
difficult to refactor and have confidence that functionality will not be
broken
- notificationsMiddleware in progress
- Favor transaction functions for production environment
- Use one transaction instead of two as we can use optional match to
delete potential previous relationships
- Refactoring without tests makes it riskier
- Move some tests from resolver to middleware unit tests to live closer
to where the validation happens, remove duplicate tests
- DRY out code
We had this error in our neo4j pod recently:
```
2019-12-02 08:29:42.680+0000 ERROR Unable to schedule bolt session 'bolt-1018230' for execution since there are no available threads to serve it at the moment. You can retry at a later time or consider increasing max thread pool size for bolt connector(s).
2019-12-02 08:29:42.680+0000 ERROR Unable to schedule bolt session 'bolt-1018224' for execution since there are no available threads to serve it at the moment. You can retry at a later time or consider increasing max thread pool size for bolt connector(s).
2019-12-02 08:29:42.681+0000 ERROR Unable to schedule bolt session 'bolt-1018352' for execution since there are no available threads to serve it at the moment. You can retry at a later time or consider increasing max thread pool size for bolt connector(s).
2019-12-02 08:29:42.682+0000 ERROR Unable to schedule bolt session 'bolt-1018243' for execution since there are no available threads to serve it at the moment. You can retry at a later time or consider increasing max thread pool size for bolt connector(s).
```
Apparently the default is 400 threads. So we must have a leak somewhere.
- update script
- use readTxResult for validateReview
- favor more verbose variables
- do not set review.closed as we close the report and the rule at the
moment is set to 'latestReviewUpdatedAtRules' rule, so it's clear the
last review must have been the one that closed the report
- Don't throw error if a report already exists since we use MERGE and
that does not create a new resource if it exists. That is tested at the
neo4j(database) level.
- We also have a test to make in reports.spec.js that no duplicate is
created to ensure we didn't make some error on our part.
- Fix some faulty logic in validateReview
- We have been using http requests in our set up in this file, which can
be avoided. We are not trying to test that the report/review workflow
works properly here, we are trying to test that if a resource was
reported, and then disabled, some conditions are true. Certainly, we
will have tests that check that the report, review workflow works as
expected.
