Conversation
WalkthroughAdds a new exported async service getMergedTasksMap to merge base tasks with contest-task pairs into a Map keyed by contest:task pairs; introduces a key utility, type updates for task/contest metadata, extensive tests for the key helper, and a developer lesson doc for the refactor. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Caller
participant Service as getMergedTasksMap
participant Tasks as getTasks
participant Pairs as getContestTaskPairs
participant KeyUtil as createContestTaskPairKey
participant Merger as createMergedTask
Caller->>Service: call()
Service->>Tasks: fetch base tasks
Tasks-->>Service: tasks[]
Service->>Pairs: fetch contest-task pairs
Pairs-->>Service: pairs[]
rect #e6f7ff
Note over Service,KeyUtil: Build base map keyed by `contestId:taskId` using KeyUtil
end
rect #fff7e6
Note over Service,Merger: For each pair not present: classify contest, validate fields,\nand call Merger to produce merged Task
Merger-->>Service: [key, mergedTask]
end
Service-->>Caller: TaskMapByContestTaskPair
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
KATO-Hiro
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/lib/utils/contest_task_pair.ts (1)
14-23: LGTM with optional simplification suggestion.The function correctly validates inputs and constructs the key. The validation logic is sound but could be slightly simplified.
Optional: Simplify validation logic
The condition
!contestId || contestId.trim() === ''is correct but slightly redundant. Since''.trim() === ''is true, you could simplify to just:- if (!contestId || contestId.trim() === '') { + if (contestId.trim() === '') { throw new Error('contestId must be a non-empty string'); } - if (!taskId || taskId.trim() === '') { + if (taskId.trim() === '') { throw new Error('taskId must be a non-empty string'); }The current code is perfectly functional—this is purely a style suggestion.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
docs/dev-notes/2025-10-25/refactor-getMergedTasksMap/lesson.md(1 hunks)src/lib/services/tasks.ts(2 hunks)src/lib/types/contest_task_pair.ts(2 hunks)src/lib/types/task.ts(1 hunks)src/lib/utils/contest_task_pair.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
docs/dev-notes/2025-10-25/refactor-getMergedTasksMap/lesson.md (1)
1-61: Excellent documentation of refactoring lessons.This documentation provides valuable context and best practices for the implementation. The lessons on reference vs. copy, functional programming patterns, and complexity analysis are well-explained and will be helpful for future maintainers.
src/lib/types/task.ts (2)
3-3: LGTM: Type-only import is appropriate.The use of
import typeis correct for the ContestType type used in the Task interface.
6-6: LGTM: Optional field maintains backward compatibility.The optional
contest_typefield extends the Task interface without breaking existing code, properly supporting the new merged task functionality.src/lib/types/contest_task_pair.ts (2)
3-3: LGTM: Import update for new type.Adding Task to the imports is necessary for the new TaskMapByContestTaskPair type definition.
23-23: LGTM: Consistent type definition.The new
TaskMapByContestTaskPairtype follows the existing pattern and naming convention used byTaskResultMapByContestTaskPair.src/lib/services/tasks.ts (3)
3-14: LGTM: Imports are complete and properly organized.All new imports are necessary for the getMergedTasksMap functionality and follow proper TypeScript conventions.
40-65: LGTM: Well-implemented merge logic.The function correctly merges tasks with contest-task pairs, building a comprehensive map. The documentation is thorough, including complexity analysis and usage examples. The logic appropriately filters pairs not in the base map and handles missing data gracefully.
77-93: Verify title replacement behavior.The implementation correctly merges task data with contest-specific information. However, the title replacement on Line 89 has a potential edge case:
title: task.title.replace(task.task_table_index, pair.taskTableIndex),
String.replace()only replaces the first occurrence. Iftask.task_table_indexis a common substring or appears in an unexpected position, it might replace the wrong text.Example edge case:
- If
task.task_table_index = "A"andtitle = "Amazing Algorithm A Problem"- Result would be:
"Bmazing Algorithm A Problem"(ifpair.taskTableIndex = "B")Given the domain context, task titles likely follow a predictable format (e.g., "A - Problem Name"), so this is probably safe. However, consider whether this assumption holds for all cases in your data.
Would you like me to generate a script to verify the title format across your existing tasks?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/test/lib/utils/contest_task_pair.test.ts (3)
58-62: Optional: beforeEach creates unnecessary copies.The test data is declared as
constand contains only primitive values, making it immutable. Since the tests never mutate these arrays, thebeforeEachhook creates unnecessary copies on every test run.Consider removing the
beforeEachhook and using the const arrays directly:- let testNormalPairs: TestPairs; - let testEdgePairs: TestPairs; - let testAnomalyPairs: TestPairs; - - beforeEach(() => { - testNormalPairs = [...pairs.normal]; - testEdgePairs = [...pairs.edge]; - testAnomalyPairs = [...pairs.anomaly]; - });Then update references to use
pairs.normal,pairs.edge, andpairs.anomalydirectly, or define them as constants at module level if preferred.
144-149: Strengthen the assertion for consistency.This test uses
toContainto check if the key includes the taskId, which is weaker than the exact format validation used in other base case tests. For consistency with tests at lines 104, 133, and 158, use an exact match.Apply this diff:
test('expects to work with numeric task identifiers', () => { const pair = testNormalPairs[5]; // typical90_a const key = createTestKey(pair); - expect(key).toContain(pair.taskId); + expect(key).toBe(getExpectedKey(pair.contestId, pair.taskId)); });
284-293: Optional: Consider a more efficient uniqueness check.The nested loop has O(n²) complexity. While this works fine with the current test data size (11 pairs), the uniqueness test at lines 277-282 already verifies this property more efficiently using a Set.
Consider removing this test as redundant, or simplify it:
- test('expects keys from different pairs to be different', () => { - const selectedPairs = testNormalPairs.slice(0, 3); - const keys = selectedPairs.map((pair) => createTestKey(pair)); - - for (let i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) { - for (let j = i + 1; j < keys.length; j++) { - expect(keys[i]).not.toBe(keys[j]); - } - } - });The test at lines 277-282 already verifies that all keys are unique, making this pairwise check redundant.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/dev-notes/2025-10-25/refactor-getMergedTasksMap/lesson.md(1 hunks)src/test/lib/utils/contest_task_pair.test.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- docs/dev-notes/2025-10-25/refactor-getMergedTasksMap/lesson.md
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
- GitHub Check: preview
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/test/lib/utils/contest_task_pair.test.ts (2)
162-245: Excellent coverage of edge and anomaly cases!The edge case tests thoroughly validate error handling for empty/whitespace inputs with clear error messages. The anomaly tests comprehensively cover special characters, unicode, very long IDs, and explicitly test delimiter-like characters (pipes) to ensure they're preserved correctly in the key format.
248-257: Verify parsing behavior with colon-containing IDs.This test parses keys using
split(':')and assumes exactly 2 components. This approach works with the current test data but will produce ambiguous results if contestId or taskId contains a colon character.This concern is related to the missing colon test cases flagged at lines 41-51. Once colon-containing test data is added, verify that:
- Either the implementation rejects colons (validation error), OR
- The parsing strategy handles embedded colons correctly (e.g., using
split(':', 2)or escaping)If colons are valid in IDs, consider using a more robust parsing approach:
// Example: split only on the first colon const [parsedContestId, ...rest] = key.split(':'); const parsedTaskId = rest.join(':');
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/dev-notes/2025-10-25/refactor-getMergedTasksMap/lesson.md(1 hunks)src/test/lib/utils/contest_task_pair.test.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/test/lib/utils/contest_task_pair.test.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
docs/dev-notes/2025-10-25/refactor-getMergedTasksMap/lesson.md
164-164: Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
1 participant
close #2748
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation
Tests