Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: Add support to exclude PFObject fields in query results with PFQuery.excludeKeys #1731

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 11, 2023

Conversation

dplewis
Copy link
Member

@dplewis dplewis commented Jul 10, 2023

New Pull Request Checklist

Issue Description

Added support for parameter excludeKeys in queries (similar to select keys) in order to exclude the desired fields from retrieved objects.

Added in Parse-Server 3.6.0 parse-community/parse-server#5737

Approach

TODOs before merging

  • Add tests
  • Add changes to documentation (guides, repository pages, in-code descriptions)

@parse-github-assistant
Copy link

parse-github-assistant bot commented Jul 10, 2023

Thanks for opening this pull request!

  • ❌ Please link an issue that describes the reason for this pull request, otherwise your pull request will be closed. Make sure to write it as Closes: #123 in the PR description, so I can recognize it.

@dplewis dplewis requested review from mtrezza and a team July 10, 2023 16:16
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 10, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 84.12% and project coverage change: +1.91 🎉

Comparison is base (19c8a62) 76.26% compared to head (7124416) 78.17%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1731      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.26%   78.17%   +1.91%     
==========================================
  Files         305      307       +2     
  Lines       36754    36865     +111     
==========================================
+ Hits        28029    28818     +789     
+ Misses       8725     8047     -678     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
Parse/Parse/Internal/Commands/PFRESTQueryCommand.m 44.81% <20.00%> (-1.23%) ⬇️
...e/Parse/Internal/Query/State/PFMutableQueryState.m 96.26% <86.66%> (-1.57%) ⬇️
Parse/Parse/Internal/Query/State/PFQueryState.m 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Parse/Parse/Source/PFQuery.m 94.82% <100.00%> (+0.06%) ⬆️
...ests/Other/TestCases/UnitTestCase/PFUnitTestCase.m 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Parse/Tests/Unit/QueryStateUnitTests.m 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Parse/Tests/Unit/QueryUnitTests.m 98.77% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

... and 29 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@mtrezza mtrezza changed the title feat: Support PFQuery.excludeKeys feat: Add support for exclude PFObject fields in query results with PFQuery.excludeKeys Jul 10, 2023
@mtrezza mtrezza changed the title feat: Add support for exclude PFObject fields in query results with PFQuery.excludeKeys feat: Add support to exclude PFObject fields in query results with PFQuery.excludeKeys Jul 10, 2023
Copy link
Member

@mtrezza mtrezza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!

@mtrezza mtrezza merged commit 98e5faf into parse-community:master Jul 11, 2023
10 checks passed
parseplatformorg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2023
# [2.4.0](2.3.0...2.4.0) (2023-07-11)

### Features

* Add support to exclude `PFObject` fields in query results with `PFQuery.excludeKeys` ([#1731](#1731)) ([98e5faf](98e5faf))
@parseplatformorg
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 This change has been released in version 2.4.0

@parseplatformorg parseplatformorg added the state:released Released as stable version label Jul 11, 2023
@dplewis dplewis deleted the exclude-keys branch September 28, 2023 02:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
state:released Released as stable version
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants