# Introduction
Avoid having multiple `isDefined` definition across our pacakges
Also avoid importing `isDefined` from `twenty-ui` which exposes a huge
barrel for a such little util function
## In a nutshell
Removed own `isDefined.ts` definition from `twenty-ui` `twenty-front`
and `twenty-server` to move it to `twenty-shared`.
Updated imports for each packages, and added explicit dependencies to
`twenty-shared` if not already in place
Related PR https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/9941
# Introduction
This PR is highly related to previous optimistic cache refactor:
https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/9881
Here we've added some logic within the
`triggerUpdateRelationsOptimisticEffect` which will now run if given
recordInput `deletedAt` field is defined.
If deletion, we will iterate over all the fields searching for
`RELATION` for which deletion might implies necessity to detach the
relation
## Known troubleshooting ( also on main )
We might have to refactor the `prefillRecord` to spread and
overrides`inputValue` over defaultOne as inputValue could be a partial
one for more info please a look to
# Conclusion
Any suggestions are welcomed !
fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/9580
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
# Introduction
It seems like optimistic caching isn't working as expected for any
record relation mutation, CREATE UPDATE DELETE.
It should not have an impact on the destroy
We included a new `computeOptimisticRecordInput` that will calculate if
a relation is added or detach.
Updated the `triggerCreateRecordsOptimisticEffect` signature we should
have a look to each of its call to determine if it should be checking
cache or not
Related to #9580
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
# Introduction
At the moment the relationships are inferred from the record data
structure instead of its metadatas
We should refactor the code that computes or not the necessity to detach
a relation on a mutation
We've refactored the `isObjectRecordConnection` method to be consuming a
`relationDefintion` instead of "typeChecking" at the runtime the data
structure using zod validation schema
Related to #9580
In this PR, I'm fixing part of the impact of soft deletion on optimistic
rendering.
## Backend Vision
1) Backend endpoints will not return soft deleted records (having
deletedAt set) by default. To get the softDeleted records, we will pass
a { withSoftDelete: true } additional param in the query.
2) Record relations will NEVER contain softDeleted relations
## Backend current state
Right now, we have the following behavior:
- if the query filters do not mention deletedAt, we don't return
softDeletedRecords
- if the query filters mention deletedAt, we take it into consideration.
Meaning that if we want to have the softDeleted records in any way we
need to do { or: [ deletedAt: NULL, deletedAt: NOT_NULL] }
## Optimistic rendering strategy
1) useDestroyOne/Many is triggering destroyOptimisticEffects (previously
deleteOptimisticEffects)
2) UseDeleteOne/Many and useRestoreOne/Many are actually triggering
updateOptimisticEffects (as they only update deletedAt field) AND we
need updateOptimisticEffects to take into account deletedAt (future
withSoftDelete: true) filter.
In this PR:
1. Refactor guards to avoid duplicated queries: WorkspaceAuthGuard and
UserAuthGuard only check for existence of workspace and user in the
request without querying the database
Closes#5924.
Adding the "many" side of relations in the table view, and fixing some
issues (glitch in Multi record select, cache update after update).
---------
Co-authored-by: Lucas Bordeau <bordeau.lucas@gmail.com>
## Query depth deprecation
I'm deprecating depth parameter in our graphql query / cache tooling.
They were obsolete since we introduce the possibility to provide
RecordGqlFields
## Refactor combinedFindManyRecordHook
The hook can now take an array of operationSignatures
## Fix tasks issues
Fix optimistic rendering issue. Note that we still haven't handle
optimisticEffect on creation properly
When writing to the normalized cache (record), it's crucial to use _refs
for relationships to avoid many problems. Essentially, we only deal with
level 0 and generate all fields to be comfortable with their defaults.
When writing in queries (which should be very rare, the only cases are
prefetch and the case of activities due to the nested query; I've
reduced this to a single file for activities
usePrepareFindManyActivitiesQuery 🙂), it's important to use queryFields
to avoid bugs. I've implemented them on the side of query generation and
record generation.
When doing an updateOne / createOne, etc., it's necessary to distinguish
between optimistic writing (which we actually want to do with _refs) and
the server response without refs. This allows for a clean write in the
optimistic cache without worrying about nesting (as the first point).
To simplify the whole activities part, write to the normalized cache
first. Then, base queries on it in an idempotent manner. This way,
there's no need to worry about the current page or action. The
normalized cache is up-to-date, so I update the queries. Same idea as
for optimisticEffects, actually.
Finally, I've triggered optimisticEffects rather than the manual update
of many queries.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lucas Bordeau <bordeau.lucas@gmail.com>
