Some important little upgrades but mostly straightforward!
Note that there's still a known issue where item searches crash, I was hoping that this was a bug in Rails 4.2 that would be fixed on upgading to 5, but nope, oh well!
Also uhh I just got a bit silly and didn't actually mean to go all the way to 5.2 in one go, I had meant to start at 5.0… but tbh the 5.1 and 5.2 changes seem small, and this seems to be working, so. Yeah ok let's roll!
I don't think these work anymore, and our volunteers get new items into the db fast anyway, Impress 2020 is doing better spidering these days. And then we get to remove the cron job `whenever` gem!
Not being a subquery is better! I realized later that a LEFT JOIN would probably do it even betterer? with like `HAVING count(x) = 0`? but the `left_outer_joins` method doesn't seem to be in Rails 4, and I don't want to do stringy joins, so this is fine for now!
Right, previously we were querying "has *at least one asset* that is not in zone X" instead of "has NO assets that are in zone X".
I don't know a fast way to query for that, this will have to do for now!
Ohh ok, without this change all of our `scope`s were just immediately evaluating the argument and fetching _all_ such matching records immediately, instead of waiting to actually be called. This led to bugs like `pet_type.as_json` returning ALL pet states in the whole db, because the `PetState.emotion_order` scope was being treated as a single predefined query, rather than a query fragment to merge into the current context.
This also explains what happened in 724ed83: that's why things before the scope in the query were being ignored.
Idk why, but when the `select` was the first thing in the query, it was getting ignored. I wonder if there's something about the `object_assets` scope that I'm not understanding that's overwriting it? Or the `joins`? But whatever, this works, I'm not worried about it for now!
We'll need to replace the item search query stuff with direct MySQL queries, but that's not ready yet bc the app still isn't booting, so we're committing this in a known broken state for now!
Okay, fine, finally making this controllable from the db without requiring a deploy :P Setting this new field will cause `item.special_color` to return the corresponding color. This mainly affects what we show on the item page, and what colors we request for modeling on the homepage.
Interestingly, these items *are* correctly detecting their special
color on the homepage for model progress. So, we *do* have the ability
to detect this. But I don't have good item data locally, so it would
be hard to test this, so I'm just gonna go with the cheap solution
again, sorry XP
In bfd825d, we refactored the "is item body-specific?" check. In the process, we dropped the check for the manual override flag, `explicitly_body_specific?`. Not sure if it was an accident or if I was just _so_ confident that it was gonna work :P In any case, re-add the check!
Okay, surprise, the bug was unrelated to Camo config (though I'm glad I cleaned
that up anyway :P). We now, at a low level, serve a placeholder image for item
thumbnail URL if, for some reason, we don't have a good thumbnail URL on hand.
It turns out that some pets for seemingly nonstandard colors have the
standard body type anyway, and vice-versa. This implies that we should
stop relying on a color's standardness, but, for the time being, we've
just revised the prediction model:
Old model:
* If I see a body_id, I find the corresponding color_ids, and it's wearable
by all pet types with those color_ids.
New model:
* If I see a body_id,
* If it also belongs to a basic pet type, it's a standard body ID.
* It therefore fits all pet types of standard color (if there's
more than one body ID modeled already). (Not really,
because of weird exceptions like Orange Chia. Should that be
standard or not?)
* If it doesn't also belong to a basic pet type, it's a nonstandard
body ID.
* It therefore only belongs to one color, and therefore the item
fits all pet types of the same color.
Some lame benchmarking on my box, dev, cache classes, many items:
No proxies:
Fresh JSON: 175, 90, 90, 93, 82, 88, 158, 150, 85, 167 = 117.8
Cached JSON: (none)
Fresh HTML: 371, 327, 355, 328, 322, 346 = 341.5
Cached HTML: 173, 123, 175, 187, 171, 179 = 168
Proxies:
Fresh JSON: 175, 183, 269, 219, 195, 178 = 203.17
Cached JSON: 88, 70, 89, 162, 80, 77 = 94.3
Fresh HTML: 494, 381, 350, 334, 451, 372 = 397
Cached HTML: 176, 170, 104, 101, 111, 116 = 129.7
So, overhead is significant, but the gains when cached (and that should be
all the time, since we currently have 0 evictions) are definitely worth
it. Worth pushing, and probably putting some future effort into reducing
overhead.
On production (again, lame), items#index was consistently averaging
73-74ms when super healthy, and 82ms when pets#index was being louder
than usual. For reference is all. This will probably perform
significantly worse at first (in JSON, anyway, since HTML is already
mostly cached), so it might be worth briefly warming the cache after
pushing.
That is, once we get our list of IDs from the search engine, only
fetch records whose JSON we don't already have cached.
It's simpler here to use as_json, but it'd probably be even faster
if I figure out how to serve a plain JSON string from a Rails
controller. In the meantime, requests of entirely cached items
are coming in at about 85ms on average on my box (dev, cache
classes, many items), about 10ms better than the last
iteration.
Specifically, the Tyrannian Meerca Spear is a pb item that contains
"pea", so its item page is only willing to show a Pea Chia. Now,
a color must be a whole word in the item name for special color
determination to work.
