# Introduction
In this PR we've migrated `twenty-shared` from a `vite` app
[libary-mode](https://vite.dev/guide/build#library-mode) to a
[preconstruct](https://preconstruct.tools/) "atomic" application ( in
the future would like to introduce preconstruct to handle of all our
atomic dependencies such as `twenty-emails` `twenty-ui` etc it will be
integrated at the monorepo's root directly, would be to invasive in the
first, starting incremental via `twenty-shared`)
For more information regarding the motivations please refer to nor:
- https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/587
-
https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/281#issuecomment-2630949682
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/589
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/590
## How to test
In order to ease the review this PR will ship all the codegen at the
very end, the actual meaning full diff is `+2,411 −114`
In order to migrate existing dependent packages to `twenty-shared` multi
barrel new arch you need to run in local:
```sh
yarn tsx packages/twenty-shared/scripts/migrateFromSingleToMultiBarrelImport.ts && \
npx nx run-many -t lint --fix -p twenty-front twenty-ui twenty-server twenty-emails twenty-shared twenty-zapier
```
Note that `migrateFromSingleToMultiBarrelImport` is idempotent, it's atm
included in the PR but should not be merged. ( such as codegen will be
added before merging this script will be removed )
## Misc
- related opened issue preconstruct
https://github.com/preconstruct/preconstruct/issues/617
## Closed related PR
- https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/11028
- https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/10993
- https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/10960
## Upcoming enhancement: ( in others dedicated PRs )
- 1/ refactor generate barrel to export atomic module instead of `*`
- 2/ generate barrel own package with several files and tests
- 3/ Migration twenty-ui the same way
- 4/ Use `preconstruct` at monorepo global level
## Conclusion
As always any suggestions are welcomed !
## Introduction
Added coverage on the `useDeleteOneRecord` hooks, especially its
optimistic behavior feature.
Introduced a new testing tool `InMemoryTestingCacheInstance` that has
builtin very basic expectors in order to avoid future duplication when
covering others record hooks `update, create, destroy` etc etc
## Notes
Added few comments in this PR regarding some builtin functions I've
created around companies and people mocked object model and that I think
could be cool to spread and centralize within a dedicated "class
template"
Also put in light that unless I'm mistaken some tests are running on
`RecordNode` and not `RecordObject`
Took few directions on my own that as I always I would suggestion nor
remarks on them !
Let me know
## Misc
- Should we refactor `useDeleteOneRecord` tests to follow `eachTesting`
pattern ? => I feel like this is inappropriate as this hooks is already
high level, the only plus value would be less tests code despite
readability IMO
# Introduction
At the moment when updating any record cache occurence, we will build a
fragment that will expect all of the object metadata item fields to be
provided.
Which result in the following traces: ( in the video companies aren't
fetch with companyId and other missing fields )
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/56eab7c1-8f01-45ff-8f5d-78737b788b92
By definition as we're using graphql we might not request every record's
fields each time we wanna consume them.
In this way we will now dynamically compute or expect depending on the
CRUD operation specific fields to be written in the cache, and not all
of them
Tested all optimistic and failure management use cases
## Covering cache
Added coverage only for the `deleteOne` and `deleteMany` hooks, it cover
only the record record cache and not its relations hydratation ( for the
moment )
## Why not closing #9927
Unless I'm mistaken everything done here have fixed the same logs/traces
issue for updates and deletion but not creation.
Which means we still need to investigate the mass upload from import and
prefillRecord behavior
In a nutshell: went over each `updateRecordFromCache` calls, still need
to do all `createRecordInCache` calls
related to #9927
## Conlusion
Sorry for the big PR should have ejected into a specific one for the
`MinimalRecord` refactor
Will also continue covering others hooks later in my week as for the
`deleteOne`
As always any suggestions are welcomed !
