Periodic task querying is a separate method

[maciej-gol]

Recent changes to how periodic tasks are filtered and fetched broke how tenant-schemas-celery fetch all periodic tasks from all schemas.

In order not to copy-paste or duck-type new behavior, the filtering logic has been refactored to a separate method, enabled_models_qs(). This method does what the original query would do. Next, the queryset is consumed into a list inside enabled_models(), which is also used in the old for-loop.

The enabled_models() method is a good integration point, as we still have access to the unevaluated queryset there, whilst being able to return simple datastructure which is a list.

In my case, I would use enabled_models_qs() to construct the query, and run it against all of the schemas. The result of enabled_models() will be the union of all the results across all of the schemas.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.11%. Comparing base (87c0597) to head (d51be79).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
django_celery_beat/schedulers.py	80.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #883      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.07%   88.11%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          32       32              
  Lines        1006     1010       +4     
  Branches      104      104              
==========================================
+ Hits          886      890       +4     
  Misses        101      101              
  Partials       19       19              

☔ 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.

[auvipy]

thanks for the patch. can you please also add some sort of failing test for this change?

[maciej-gol]

What do you mean a failing test? :D Its a refactor so there should be no behavioral changes. I can add tests for each method separately, though. pon., 5 maj 2025, 10:18 użytkownik Asif Saif Uddin ***@***.***> napisał:

…

***@***.**** requested changes on this pull request. thanks for the patch. can you please also add some sort of failing test for this change? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#883 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAOGQTONUJM4QREWOOBFBDD244NG7AVCNFSM6AAAAAB4MU6XKSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZDQMJUGEYTEMJRGM> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[auvipy]

Some Additional tests would be nice

[auvipy]

@alirafiei75 can you take a look into it as well please?

also we have another PR #886

[alirafiei75]

@alirafiei75 can you take a look into it as well please?

also we have another PR #886
This PR does not introduce any behavioral change and it seems OK.