baseapp-profiles: ProfilableModel has protected instead of Cascade #197
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThe changes involve modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![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
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
baseapp-profiles/baseapp_profiles/models.py (1)
148-148: Consider implementing proper error handling for protected deletion.Since the profile deletion is now protected, consider:
- Adding custom error messages in the admin interface
- Implementing proper error handling in API views
- Updating documentation to reflect the new behavior
- Adding user-friendly messages in the UI when deletion is prevented
Example error handling in views:
from django.db.models.deletion import ProtectedError def delete_profile(request, profile_id): try: profile.delete() except ProtectedError: messages.error(request, _("Cannot delete profile while it is associated with users")) # or for API views: # return Response({"error": "Cannot delete profile while it is associated with users"}, # status=status.HTTP_423_LOCKED)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 43696fd and b5e03c8bf25e2dbcad0b330f72703da8428696a0.
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
baseapp-profiles/baseapp_profiles/models.py(1 hunks)baseapp-profiles/testproject/testapp/migrations/0012_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
baseapp-profiles/testproject/testapp/migrations/0012_alter_user_profile.py (1)
16-27: LGTM! Migration correctly implements PROTECT behavior.
The migration properly changes the on_delete behavior to PROTECT while maintaining other field attributes. This aligns with the PR objective of preventing unintended user deletion.
Let's verify there are no existing orphaned users that might be affected:
✅ Verification successful
Migration is safe to proceed with PROTECT behavior
The verification shows that:
- The existing test
test_delete_user_with_commentconfirms that user deletion was previously cascading - The signals handling deletion are only related to comments, not profiles
- The profile deletion is properly managed through GraphQL mutations with appropriate permission checks
- No orphaned data handling concerns were found
The change from CASCADE to PROTECT is a safe improvement that will prevent accidental user deletion when attempting to delete profiles.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any TODO/FIXME comments about user deletion or cascade behavior
rg -i "todo.*(?:cascade|delete|user|profile)" -g "!*.pyc"
# Look for any existing migration files that might have related changes
fd -e py -p ".*migration.*" | xargs rg -l "on_delete.*CASCADE.*profile"
Length of output: 326
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the model definition to understand the previous on_delete behavior
ast-grep --pattern 'class User($$$):\n $$$\n profile = models.OneToOneField($$$)'
# Check for any existing user-profile related signals or handlers
rg -l "post_delete|pre_delete.*profile" -g "*.py"
# Look for any tests involving user or profile deletion
rg "def test.*delete.*(?:user|profile)" -g "*test*.py"
Length of output: 2943
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the signals file that might handle profile deletion
cat baseapp-comments/baseapp_comments/signals.py
# Let's also check the test case that involves user deletion to understand the existing behavior
cat baseapp-comments/baseapp_comments/tests/test_users.py
# Check for any other migrations that set up the initial profile relationship
fd -e py -p ".*migration.*" | xargs rg "OneToOneField.*profile"
Length of output: 4436
baseapp-profiles/baseapp_profiles/models.py (2)
148-148: LGTM! ProfilableModel now properly protects against cascade deletion.
The change from CASCADE to PROTECT ensures that profiles cannot be deleted while referenced by users, which aligns with the PR objectives.
Let's verify the implementation across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response as we have sufficient information about the profile deletion implementation and its impact:
The change from CASCADE to PROTECT is correctly implemented and properly handled in the codebase.
The verification shows:
- Profile deletion is properly gated through permissions in
baseapp_profiles/graphql/mutations.py - The deletion mutation includes proper error handling
- No direct profile deletions are found that could bypass the protection
- The change to PROTECT is consistent with the codebase's design where profiles are central entities referenced by other models
The only CASCADE deletions found in the profiles app are for non-critical relationships (like profile roles and user associations) which is the correct pattern - protecting the profile itself while allowing cleanup of its subordinate records.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for any direct profile deletion calls that might need error handling
ast-grep --pattern 'profile.$$$delete($$$)'
# Check for any custom delete methods that might bypass this protection
ast-grep --pattern 'def delete($$$):
$$$
profile.$$$
$$$'
Length of output: 111
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for delete operations and profile references
# Search for any delete operations in Python files
rg -l "\.delete\(" --type py
# Search for profile-related delete operations with context
rg "profile.*\.delete" -A 3 --type py
# Look for potential cascade deletion scenarios
rg "on_delete\s*=\s*models\.CASCADE" --type py
# Check for any profile-related models and their relationships
rg "class.*Profile" -A 10 --type py
Length of output: 34652
148-148: Verify consistency across related models.
While the change looks good, let's ensure all profile-related models maintain consistent deletion behavior.
✅ Verification successful
All profile-related models maintain consistent deletion behavior
Based on the codebase analysis, the use of models.PROTECT for profile-related foreign keys is consistent with the overall architecture. The profile models implement proper relationship protection, and there are no conflicting deletion behaviors found in related models. The manager implementations also respect this protection pattern.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any other profile-related foreign keys that might need similar protection
rg "ForeignKey.*profile" -A 5 -g "*.py"
# Look for any custom managers or querysets that might handle profile deletion
ast-grep --pattern 'class $$$Manager($$$):
$$$
profile.$$$
$$$'
Length of output: 113
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for foreign keys and profile relationships
rg "ForeignKey|OneToOne.*profile" -i -g "*.py"
# Also search for profile-related model definitions
ast-grep --pattern 'class $$$Profile($$$):
$$$'
# Check for any profile-related delete methods
ast-grep --pattern 'def delete($$$):
$$$
profile
$$$'
Length of output: 15464
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's specifically check the on_delete behavior for profile-related foreign keys
rg "ForeignKey.*profile.*on_delete" -g "*.py" -B 1 -A 1
# Also check for any profile-related models with their on_delete behavior
rg "class.*Profile.*models\." -g "*.py" -A 10
Length of output: 3153
nossila
changed the title
rafaelhdr
force-pushed
the
protect-profilable-model
branch
from
b5e03c8 to
de41f8c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b5e03c8bf25e2dbcad0b330f72703da8428696a0 and de41f8c31eafb20e08ba9aee97112d85154f3d1a.
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
baseapp-auth/testproject/testapp/migrations/0012_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)baseapp-profiles/baseapp_profiles/models.py(2 hunks)baseapp-profiles/testproject/testapp/migrations/0012_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)baseapp-reports/testproject/testapp/migrations/0004_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- baseapp-profiles/testproject/testapp/migrations/0012_alter_user_profile.py
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (20)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-e2e / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-e2e / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-drf-view-action-permissions / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-drf-view-action-permissions / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-comments / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-cloudflare-stream-field / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-comments / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-core / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-chats / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-cloudflare-stream-field / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-core / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-chats / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-auth-baseapp_referrals / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-blocks / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-auth-baseapp_referrals / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-auth-baseapp_auth / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-blocks / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-auth-baseapp_auth / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
baseapp-profiles/baseapp_profiles/models.py (1)
148-151: Consider removing nullability to align with team's decisionBased on the team's discussion in past comments, the intention is to "not have users without Profile". However, the field is still marked as
null=True, blank=True, which contradicts this decision.Consider removing the nullability if all users must have profiles. However, this requires careful consideration of:
- The profile creation flow
- Existing data migration needs
- The chicken-and-egg problem mentioned in past comments
Would you like to discuss the implications of making this field required?
baseapp-auth/testproject/testapp/migrations/0012_alter_user_profile.py (1)
19-26: Migration looks good but verify coordinationThe migration correctly implements the PROTECT behavior. However, since this is part of a coordinated change across multiple apps, ensure that:
- The migration ordering is correct
- All apps using ProfilableModel are covered
Run this script to check for any missed migrations or inconsistencies:
✅ Verification successful
Migration is correctly coordinated and consistent
The migration correctly implements PROTECT behavior for the User-Profile relationship while maintaining appropriate CASCADE behavior in dependent models (chats, comments) where profile deletion should cascade. Dependencies are properly ordered across apps.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any missed migrations or inconsistencies in profile field definitions # Find all migration files that might contain profile field definitions fd --type f . -e py | xargs rg -l "profile.*OneToOneField|ForeignKey.*profile" # Check for any remaining CASCADE delete behaviors rg -i "cascade.*profile|profile.*cascade" -A 5 -B 5Length of output: 1740
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find migrations that modify profile fields and check their dependencies fd migration . -e py | xargs rg -l "profile.*\(" -A 10 | \ xargs rg "dependencies|profile" -A 5 -B 5 # Also check for any other profile-related models that might need migration ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ { $$$ profile = models.$_( $$$ ) $$$ }'Length of output: 79772
baseapp-reports/testproject/testapp/migrations/0004_alter_user_profile.py (1)
19-26: LGTM - Migration is consistentThe migration correctly implements the same changes as in the auth app.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
baseapp-pages/testproject/testapp/migrations/0012_alter_user_profile.py (1)
1-28: Consider squashing migrations before deployment.Given that multiple apps are receiving identical field modifications, consider squashing migrations to optimize deployment and reduce database operation time.
Run the following to verify the migration structure across apps:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check migration structure across apps to identify squashing opportunities # Find all migration files modifying the profile field fd --type f ".*alter_user_profile.py$" | while read -r file; do echo "=== $file ===" # Extract dependencies and operations rg -A 5 "dependencies = \[|operations = \[" "$file" done
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between de41f8c31eafb20e08ba9aee97112d85154f3d1a and a664d8bdb3feaeb603fab76e3ca32f94cd3d8897.
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
baseapp-blocks/testproject/testapp/migrations/0004_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)baseapp-chats/testproject/settings.py(1 hunks)baseapp-chats/testproject/testapp/migrations/0010_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)baseapp-follows/testproject/testapp/migrations/0009_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)baseapp-organizations/baseapp_organizations/migrations/0002_alter_organization_profile.py(1 hunks)baseapp-organizations/testproject/testapp/migrations/0003_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)baseapp-pages/testproject/testapp/migrations/0012_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)baseapp-ratings/testproject/testapp/migrations/0005_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)baseapp-reactions/testproject/settings.py(1 hunks)baseapp-reactions/testproject/testapp/migrations/0004_alter_user_profile.py(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (18)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-e2e / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-follows / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-drf-view-action-permissions / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-e2e / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-core / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-drf-view-action-permissions / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-core / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-cloudflare-stream-field / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-chats / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-cloudflare-stream-field / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-chats / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-blocks / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-auth-baseapp_auth / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-auth-baseapp_referrals / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-auth-baseapp_auth / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp / project-workflow (3.12, 5.0.8)
- GitHub Check: baseapp-auth-baseapp_referrals / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
- GitHub Check: baseapp / project-workflow (3.12, 4.2.15)
🔇 Additional comments (11)
baseapp-reactions/testproject/settings.py (1)
31-31: LGTM! Verify middleware configuration.The addition of
MessageMiddlewareis correctly positioned in the middleware stack and aligns with the PR objective to display "Cannot delete profile" messages in Django Admin.Run this script to verify the middleware configuration across the project:
✅ Verification successful
Middleware configuration verified and correct
The
MessageMiddlewareis properly configured in all settings files where it's used:
- Correctly positioned after
SessionMiddlewareandAuthenticationMiddleware- Maintains consistent ordering across test projects
- Follows Django's middleware requirements for message functionality
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent MessageMiddleware configuration across settings files # and verify it's positioned after SessionMiddleware in all cases # Search for MessageMiddleware in all settings files echo "Checking MessageMiddleware configuration:" rg -A 10 -B 10 "MIDDLEWARE.*=.*\[" | rg -A 10 "MessageMiddleware" # Verify SessionMiddleware appears before MessageMiddleware echo -e "\nVerifying middleware order:" rg -A 15 "SessionMiddleware" | rg -A 10 "MessageMiddleware"Length of output: 4661
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Show complete MIDDLEWARE configuration from all settings files echo "Complete MIDDLEWARE configurations:" rg -A 20 "MIDDLEWARE.*=.*\[" --multiline # Extract and compare positions of SessionMiddleware and MessageMiddleware echo -e "\nChecking middleware order in each file:" for f in $(rg -l "MIDDLEWARE.*=.*\["); do echo "=== $f ===" rg -A 20 "MIDDLEWARE.*=.*\[" "$f" | rg "Middleware" doneLength of output: 19281
baseapp-chats/testproject/settings.py (1)
28-28: LGTM! Consistent middleware configuration.The addition of
MessageMiddlewarematches the configuration inbaseapp-reactionsand is correctly positioned in the middleware stack.baseapp-organizations/baseapp_organizations/migrations/0002_alter_organization_profile.py (2)
1-6: LGTM! Migration metadata and imports are properly structured.The migration file follows Django conventions with appropriate imports and metadata.
10-13: LGTM! Dependencies are correctly configured.The migration properly depends on both the initial migration and the swappable profile model.
baseapp-blocks/testproject/testapp/migrations/0004_alter_user_profile.py (1)
19-26: LGTM! Field configuration aligns with PR objectives.The OneToOneField configuration with
on_delete=PROTECTcorrectly implements the desired behavior of preventing profile deletion when users are still associated.A few key points about this implementation:
PROTECTensures data integrity by preventing accidental deletionsblank=True, null=Truemaintains backward compatibility by allowing optional profiles- Dynamic
related_nameusing%(class)sprevents naming conflictsbaseapp-reactions/testproject/testapp/migrations/0004_alter_user_profile.py (1)
10-13: LGTM! Dependencies are correctly configured.The migration properly depends on the previous migration and the swappable profile model.
baseapp-ratings/testproject/testapp/migrations/0005_alter_user_profile.py (1)
1-28: Verify the migration order across all apps.The changes look good, but since this affects multiple apps, ensure proper migration ordering during deployment.
Run this script to analyze migration dependencies and determine the correct deployment order:
✅ Verification successful
Migration dependencies are properly configured
All apps maintain correct internal migration sequences and properly reference the profile model. No cascade dependencies were found, ensuring data integrity during deployment.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze migration dependencies to determine deployment order # Find all relevant migration files echo "=== Migration Dependencies Analysis ===" fd --type f ".*alter_user_profile.py$" | while read -r file; do dir=$(dirname "$file") # Extract app name and dependencies app_name=$(echo "$dir" | rg -o "baseapp-[^/]+") echo "App: $app_name" rg "dependencies = \[" -A 3 "$file" done # Check for any existing profile references that might be affected echo -e "\n=== Existing Profile References ===" rg "on_delete\s*=\s*.*CASCADE.*profile" --type pyLength of output: 6035
baseapp-follows/testproject/testapp/migrations/0009_alter_user_profile.py (1)
15-27: LGTM! Migration correctly implements PROTECT behaviorThe migration properly changes the profile field's
on_deletebehavior toPROTECT, which aligns with the PR objective of preventing profile deletion when associated users exist. The field configuration follows Django best practices with appropriate use ofblank=True,null=True, and dynamicrelated_name.baseapp-chats/testproject/testapp/migrations/0010_alter_user_profile.py (1)
15-27: LGTM! Consistent with other app migrationsThe migration maintains consistency with other apps by implementing the same PROTECT behavior and field configuration.
baseapp-organizations/testproject/testapp/migrations/0003_alter_user_profile.py (2)
15-27: LGTM! Migration maintains consistencyThe migration correctly implements the PROTECT behavior and maintains field configuration consistency with other apps.
10-13: Verify migration dependencies across appsWhile the migration correctly implements the PROTECT behavior, since multiple apps are modifying the same User model field, it's important to ensure proper migration ordering to prevent conflicts.
Run this script to check migration dependencies across apps:
baseapp-organizations/baseapp_organizations/migrations/0002_alter_organization_profile.py
Show resolved
Hide resolved
rafaelhdr
force-pushed
the
protect-profilable-model
branch
from
a664d8b to
c0c71bc
Compare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not something that happen much, but if we try to delete a profile, we should protect the user (instead of CASCADE). In my example, it was for tests we were doing on staging.
As result, Django Admin should project w/
Cannot delete profileinstead of deleting also users.Summary by CodeRabbit
on_deletebehavior for the profile field to prevent accidental deletions.profilefield in the user model to establish a one-to-one relationship, allowing for optional profiles and improving usability.