Skip to content

Redesign /retrieve#3548

Merged
jotare merged 11 commits intomainfrom
redesign-retrieve
Mar 19, 2026
Merged

Redesign /retrieve#3548
jotare merged 11 commits intomainfrom
redesign-retrieve

Conversation

@jotare
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jotare jotare commented Mar 3, 2026

Description

/retrieve was not meeting expectations. Re-designing and re-implementing it

How was this PR tested?

Describe how you tested this PR.

@jotare jotare requested a review from a team March 3, 2026 11:45
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Mar 3, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.61905% with 26 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.59%. Comparing base (da7076f) to head (94b8a5f).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...adb/search/search/query_parser/parsers/retrieve.py 79.00% 21 Missing ⚠️
...liadb/search/search/query_parser/parsers/common.py 84.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
nucliadb/src/nucliadb/search/api/v1/retrieve.py 97.95% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3548      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.58%   85.59%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         549      549              
  Lines       46636    46776     +140     
  Branches    13276    13276              
==========================================
+ Hits        39913    40039     +126     
- Misses       6131     6145      +14     
  Partials      592      592              
Flag Coverage Δ
nidx 80.62% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
nucliadb 73.01% <46.19%> (-0.20%) ⬇️
nucliadb-ingest 43.57% <23.33%> (-0.07%) ⬇️
nucliadb-reader 43.64% <23.33%> (-0.09%) ⬇️
nucliadb-search 53.94% <87.61%> (+0.18%) ⬆️
nucliadb-standalone 46.04% <23.33%> (-0.08%) ⬇️
nucliadb-train 44.67% <23.33%> (-0.10%) ⬇️
nucliadb-writer 46.99% <23.33%> (-0.11%) ⬇️
nucliadb_dataset 73.53% <90.90%> (+0.11%) ⬆️
nucliadb_models 71.27% <0.00%> (-0.76%) ⬇️
nucliadb_sdk 83.32% <90.90%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
nucliadb_telemetry 82.92% <ø> (ø)
nucliadb_utils 80.79% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@jotare jotare marked this pull request as draft March 3, 2026 13:46
@jotare
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

jotare commented Mar 4, 2026

[sc-14079]

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@bloodbare bloodbare left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How we manage range queries on date ? We should think also when we have a date/integer field. Security is in filter ? Besides this two comments and the keyword/semantic disabling all good

Comment thread nucliadb_models/src/nucliadb_models/retrieval.py Outdated
@jotare jotare marked this pull request as ready for review March 10, 2026 11:54
@jotare jotare force-pushed the redesign-retrieve branch from 0d6bf96 to 1ea2e2f Compare March 10, 2026 11:54
@jotare jotare force-pushed the redesign-retrieve branch from 43f3e8f to 94b8a5f Compare March 12, 2026 08:50
@jotare jotare requested a review from a team March 12, 2026 10:06
@jotare jotare merged commit 04f05b6 into main Mar 19, 2026
41 checks passed
@jotare jotare deleted the redesign-retrieve branch March 19, 2026 08:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants