Feature/typeof

[stackasaur]

Description

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [?] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation update
• Code refactoring
• Test improvements
• CI/CD improvements

Changes Made

• Added support for TypeOf
• Potentially breaking for user implementations as Queryable interface was modified

Related Issues

Fixes #235
Closes #

Testing

• All existing tests pass (npm test)
• Added new tests for new functionality
• Tested in scratch org
• Linting passes (npm run lint)
• Code formatting is correct (npm run prettier:verify)

Screenshots

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code where necessary
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings or errors
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published

Additional Notes

String query = SOQL.of(Event.sObjectType)
.with(
  SOQL.type.of(Event.WhatId)
  .when(Account.sObjectType).then(Account.Name)
  .when(Opportunity.sObjectType).then(Opportunity.Name)
  .whenElse('Name')
)
.toString();
System.debug(query);

// outputs
// SELECT TYPEOF What WHEN Account THEN Name WHEN Opportunity THEN Name ELSE Name END FROM Event

[vercel]

@stackasaur is attempting to deploy a commit to the Beyond The Cloud Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[stackasaur]

Haven't written unit tests yet.
Wanted some feedback on the code first as it's my first feature addition to this repo.

I added the neccesary classes to add the TypeOf fields as a component of SoqlFields as that seemed like the most logical place for the logic.

@pgajek2

[pgajek2]

Haven't written unit tests yet. Wanted some feedback on the code first as it's my first feature addition to this repo.

I added the neccesary classes to add the TypeOf fields as a component of SoqlFields as that seemed like the most logical place for the logic.

@pgajek2

@stackasaur perfect!

I'll review it as soon I'll have time!

[pgajek2]

I like it! Nice work!

If you disagree with anything, feel free to raise it.

[stackasaur]

@pgajek2

What is the expected behavior of situations like this:

TYPEOF can’t be used in queries with GROUP BY, GROUP BY ROLLUP, GROUP BY CUBE, and HAVING.

Throw Exceptions?
Let SFDC throw it when executed?
Clean in up for the user?

[stackasaur]

@pgajek2

I've addressed all of your comments

[pgajek2]

@pgajek2

What is the expected behavior of situations like this:

TYPEOF can’t be used in queries with GROUP BY, GROUP BY ROLLUP, GROUP BY CUBE, and HAVING.

Throw Exceptions? Let SFDC throw it when executed? Clean in up for the user?

I would say: Let SFDC throw it when executed - as it's default behaviour, let's keep it in this way.

[pgajek2]

@stackasaur all looks good, you can continue with the unit tests.

[stackasaur]

@pgajek2 ,
I've updated documentation to cover usage.

[pgajek2]

Very nice!

[stackasaur]

I'm not sure what your preference for examples are. I started providing one for each method, but they all looked the same, so I scaled it back to just the one since all usage follows the same pattern.

[stackasaur]

@pgajek2

Modified tests to look more like the others
Wrote documentation within API section

I think we're good

[pgajek2]

@pgajek2

Modified tests to look more like the others

Wrote documentation within API section

I think we're good

Could you also write a test where you try do mock the result? Would it be possible?

[stackasaur]

I think that should be possible.

I'll give it a go

[stackasaur]

@pgajek2 ,

I looked into adding a test with a mocked result, but I'm not entirely sure what we can mock here to actually test anything.

I can add a test that actually creates some records to assert the functionality, but it will need to be around 6 total records inserted of 4 different object types to adequately test the functionality.

Would you like me to write a test that does actual record insertion to test this?

[stackasaur]

@pgajek2,

Have this one updated to be off of release v6.11.0.

I think the only thing up in the air with this one is whether or not it needs a full integration test with record creation. I don't think any level of mocking can do much with it.