fix(mutations): Refetch instances to optimize the return value

[bellini666]

Refetch instances after the mutation to make sure we optimize the result.

Without this, annotated fields would not exist in the return value and would fail to be returned.

I'm also modifying a test to include an annotated field. Without this change applied it would fail.

Fix #635

Summary by Sourcery

Refetch instances after mutations to ensure annotated fields are included in the return value, addressing issue #635. Introduce a refetch method to optimize the retrieval of instances post-mutation. Add a test case to verify the inclusion of the 'isDelayed' field in the mutation response.

Bug Fixes:

• Refetch instances after mutations to ensure annotated fields are included in the return value, addressing issue annotate and other query optimizations fail in mutations #635.

Enhancements:

• Introduce a refetch method to optimize the retrieval of instances post-mutation.

Tests:

• Add a test case to verify the inclusion of the 'isDelayed' field in the mutation response.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This PR optimizes mutation return values by refetching instances after mutations to ensure all fields (including annotated ones) are properly included in the response. The implementation adds a new refetch method to handle optimization of both single and list model instances, and modifies create/update/delete mutations to use this optimization approach.

Sequence diagram for refetching instances after mutation

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant Mutation as DjangoMutation
    participant DB as Database

    User->>Mutation: Request mutation (create/update/delete)
    Mutation->>DB: Perform mutation
    DB-->>Mutation: Return mutated instance(s)
    Mutation->>Mutation: Call refetch(resolved, info)
    Mutation->>DB: Refetch optimized instance(s)
    DB-->>Mutation: Return optimized instance(s)
    Mutation-->>User: Return optimized result

Loading

Class diagram for updated mutation classes

classDiagram
    class DjangoMutationBase {
        +refetch(resolved: _T, info: Info | None) _T
    }

    class DjangoCreateMutation {
        +resolver(...)
        +create(data: dict[str, Any], info: Info)
    }

    class DjangoUpdateMutation {
        +resolver(...)
        +instance_level_update(...)
        +update(instance: models.Model | Iterable[models.Model], data: dict[str, Any])
    }

    class DjangoDeleteMutation {
        +resolver(...)
        +delete(instance: models.Model | Iterable[models.Model], data: dict[str, Any] | None)
    }

    DjangoCreateMutation --|> DjangoMutationBase
    DjangoUpdateMutation --|> DjangoMutationBase
    DjangoDeleteMutation --|> DjangoMutationBase

    note for DjangoMutationBase "New refetch method added for optimization"

Loading

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Added a new refetch method to optimize mutation return values	Implemented a generic refetch method that handles both single models and lists of models Added type variable _T bound to Model or list[Model] Preserved original ordering when refetching lists of models Added optimization using DjangoOptimizerExtension and model queries	strawberry_django/mutations/fields.py
Restructured mutation operations to use the new refetch optimization	Modified create mutation to refetch instances after creation Updated update mutation to refetch instances after updates Moved DjangoOptimizerExtension.disabled() context to resolver level Simplified delete mutation by removing unnecessary optimization disable context	strawberry_django/mutations/fields.py
Updated tests to verify optimization behavior	Added query count assertion to verify optimization performance Added isDelayed field to test query to verify annotated field handling	tests/test_input_mutations.py

Possibly linked issues

• annotate and other query optimizations fail in mutations #635: The PR fixes the issue by refetching instances to ensure annotated fields are returned in mutations.

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time. You can also use
  this command to specify where the summary should be inserted.

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @bellini666 - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟡 Testing: 1 issue found
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 96.77419% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.99%. Comparing base (0d59b84) to head (75d41c7).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
strawberry_django/mutations/fields.py	96.77%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #674      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.94%   88.99%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          41       41              
  Lines        3737     3752      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits         3324     3339      +15     
  Misses        413      413              

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