GQL-118: Query for a collection by a specific revision-id by htranho · Pull Request #177 · nasa/cmr-graphql

htranho · 2026-01-26T23:10:56Z

Overview

What is the feature?

This feature adds support for fetching specific revisions of collections in the GraphQL API. It allows querying a particular revision of a collection by its concept ID and revision ID.

What is the Solution?

The solution involves modifying the Collection concept class and related resolvers to handle revision-specific queries. Key changes include:

Update methos to fetch and parse revision-specific data from CMR. For fetching, changes made in case of umm keys are present:
when revision ID is given, fetch data from the 'concepts' endpoint and also from the revisions endpoint if needed (meta keys given).
For merging, changes are made because response from the 'concepts' endpoint is different from existing concept type end point.
Adding checks to prevent certain field (revisions) from being queried when requesting a specific revision.
Updating the CollectionInput type to include a revisionId parameter.

What areas of the application does this impact?

This change impacts several areas of the application:

src/cmr/concepts/concept.js: Major updates to the Concept class to support revision-specific queries and merging.
src/resolvers/collection.js: Updates to collection resolvers to handle revision-specific queries and add appropriate error checks.
src/types/collection.graphql: Addition of revisionId to the CollectionInput type.
src/resolvers/__tests__/collection.test.js: New tests added to cover the new functionality and error cases.

Testing

Reproduction steps

Environment for testing: Local development environment
Collection to test with: Any collection with multiple revisions in CMR

Start the GraphQL server locally.
Use a GraphQL client (e.g., GraphQL Playground) to send queries.

Test querying a specific revision of a collection, example:

query Collection($params: CollectionInput) {
     collection(params: $params) {
         conceptId
         shortName
         revisionId
         revisionDate
         associationDetails
     }
 }
 with
 {
     "params": {
         "conceptId": "C1200237617-MMT_1",
         "revisionId": "23"
     }
 }

Use MMT to revome or add Variable or any other concept type's associations to this collection. check if changes seen in graphql.
Request all collection fields. Known error in main branch and also this branch is the field generateVariableDrafts.

Verify that the correct revision is returned with the requested fields.

Test error cases by requesting fields that are not allowed for specific revisions:

query {
  collection(params: { conceptId: "C1200237617-MMT_1", revisionId: "23" }) {
    conceptId
    revisionId
    revisions {
      count
    }
  }
}

Verify that appropriate error messages are returned.
Test fetching a collection without specifying a revision ID to ensure backward compatibility.

Checklist

I have added automated tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
I have performed a self-review of my own code
I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
My changes generate no new warnings

codecov · 2026-01-26T23:13:10Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.96970% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 99.92%. Comparing base (881c63e) to head (f1653a0).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/cmr/concepts/concept.js	96.07%	2 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (96.96%) is below the target coverage (100.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.
❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (99.92%) is below the target coverage (100.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main     #177      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   99.92%   -0.08%     
===========================================
  Files          115      115              
  Lines         2706     2765      +59     
  Branches       330      346      +16     
===========================================
+ Hits          2706     2763      +57     
- Misses           0        2       +2

☔ 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.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

…m concept

src/cmr/concepts/concept.js

src/resolvers/collection.js

eudoroolivares2016 · 2026-02-02T19:56:58Z

src/cmr/concepts/concept.js

+   * @param {String} revisionId The specific revision ID to extract
+   * @param {Array} ummKeys Keys that were requested
+   */
+  async parseAndMergeMetaFields(allRevisionsResponse, revisionId, ummKeys) {


We need to move most of the logic in this class over to the src/utils/parseRequestedFields.js

I think I was wrong that was from the PR notes I'm not really seeing how we'd do that here and this certainly isn't creating new scope in this class behavior like this is already there

Now moved processing of keys to parseRequestedKeys

macrouch

Ed is right, most of what you have in concept.js needs to be moved to parseRequestedFields.js.

The concept class should just be given lists of keys in the requestInfo, and the concept class should only have the knowledge that it needs to fetch the provided keys. It shouldn't be responsible for parsing parameters, or parsing ummKeyMappings to determine if different requests should be made. The concept class logic should be "if ummKeys exist, fetchUmm. if jsonKeys exist, fetchJson. if concept endpoint should be fetched, fetch the concept endpoint"

macrouch · 2026-02-03T15:55:08Z

src/resolvers/collection.js

+      context.singleRevisionRequest = !!args.params?.revisionId
+
+      // Add the conceptId to the context
+      context.conceptId = args.params?.conceptId


This should not be done. source is where the nested resolvers should be getting the conceptId

Done, now reverted unnecessary change: no need to store conceptId in context.

macrouch · 2026-02-03T15:56:08Z

src/types/collection.graphql

This file is still missing the documentation for any fields that can throw an error when a revision id is provided

I actually don't know either where those get added. I'd assume its either in magidoc/pages/02.Query Fields/04.Items.md or its something that we just add it on the collection.graphql file and its kind of like @deprecated(reason: "Use params.includeTags") apparently you can actually use custom schema directives https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/v3/schema/creating-directives

It's just the string that is above every field in this file

I tried @error directive, but the server doesn't like it:
ERROR Uncaught Exception {"errorType":"Error","errorMessage":"Unknown directive "@error".
So I checked in as comment at the field for now.

mandyparson · 2026-02-03T16:51:47Z

Once you've made those suggested changes, double check that you can query revisions on a collection when you don't pass revisionId as an argument. Right now, that feature isn't working.

src/cmr/concepts/concept.js

eudoroolivares2016 · 2026-02-03T00:00:36Z

src/cmr/concepts/concept.js

+        )
+
+        // Second: If meta-only fields are needed, fetch all revisions from search endpoint
+        const needsMetaFields = ummKeys.some((key) => this.requestInfo.ummKeyMappings[key]?.startsWith('meta.')


We have the list of meta keys or at least it seems like it, on const { jsonKeys, metaKeys, ummKeys } = this.requestInfo

can we use that field for the conditional?

Now moved to parseRequestFields

eudoroolivares2016 · 2026-02-03T00:02:08Z

src/cmr/concepts/concept.js

+   * @param {String} revisionId The specific revision ID to extract
+   * @param {Array} ummKeys Keys that were requested
+   */
+  async parseAndMergeMetaFields(allRevisionsResponse, revisionId, ummKeys) {


I think I was wrong that was from the PR notes I'm not really seeing how we'd do that here and this certainly isn't creating new scope in this class behavior like this is already there

eudoroolivares2016 · 2026-02-03T00:03:31Z

src/cmr/concepts/concept.js

+    }
+
+    // Get the existing item key (should be only one item from concepts endpoint)
+    const existingItemKeys = Object.keys(this.items)


might just be able to use the existing this.getItem() in this case but, not certain

Now using this.getItems()

htranho · 2026-02-03T23:07:15Z

Once you've made those suggested changes, double check that you can query revisions on a collection when you don't pass revisionId as an argument. Right now, that feature isn't working.

I tried main, that is also broken

mandyparson · 2026-02-05T14:25:56Z

src/resolvers/__tests__/collection.test.js


  describe('Collection', () => {
+    describe('fetch', () => {
+      test('fetches a specific revision of a collection', async () => {


Remove the 'fetch' field from under the describe block with capital letter 'Collection' (line 50 in your resolvers) and place all these tests you've added under describe block for lower case 'collection' (line 17). Reason being that these are all done when retrieving a collection, not a field on collection.

"fetches a specific revision of a collection when revisionId is provided in arguments"

I don't see any new changes?

Sorry, missed a 'git push'

mandyparson · 2026-02-05T14:29:33Z

src/resolvers/__tests__/collection.test.js

+        })
+      })
+
+      test('fetches all revisions when meta-only fields are needed', async () => {


What is this test supposed to be doing? It wants to fetch all revisions but you passed it a revisions id and did not request revisions in your query.

Done, updated the description to make it more clear what been tested.

src/resolvers/__tests__/collection.test.js

Its my review

macrouch

I've found a couple of queries that are not working correctly

This query is sending too many requests to CMR.

query Collection($params: CollectionInput) {
  collection(params: $params) {
    shortName
  }
}

By only requesting the shortName, which is a UMM field, cmr-graphql should only make one request to CMR for the UMM (from the concept endpoint). Currently it is making a request to both https://cmr.sit.earthdata.nasa.gov/search/collections.json and https://cmr.sit.earthdata.nasa.gov/search/concepts/C1200237617-MMT_1/23.umm_json. There is no reason to send the request to collections.json

This query is potentially returning incorrect data.

query Collection($params: CollectionInput) {
  collection(params: $params) {
    boxes
  }
}

boxes is only in the json endpoint, so you have to be sure to return the boxes from the correct revision. Currently it is only sending the conceptId to the json endpoint, so that will be returning the boxes from the latest revision, which could be different from the revision the user provided. The only way I can think to solve this is if revisionId is provided and jsonKeys are populated, you would have to include the all_revisions parameter and filter the returned data to the correct revision.

Both of these use cases should have a test that shows the correct requests are being made and the correct data being returned.

Suggested Changes:

concept.js: revisionId and conceptId are still being used to determine logic in this file. You are making the logic in this file more complicated by trying to do it this way. parseRequestedFields should be returning everything necessary to send these requests to CMR from concept.js

Following the standing conventions of parseRequestedFields, I'd return a conceptEndpointKeys, which contains every requested field that can be returned from the concept endpoint. The field should only be present in one of the 3 list of keys returned (json, umm, conceptEndpoint). metaKeys is useful for determining which fields should be in conceptEndpointKeys or ummKeys, but it should not be necessary in concept.js

Then in concept.js you don't have to look at the request at all, if conceptEndpointKeys exist, call the new fetch function, if ummKeys exist, call fetchUmm and if jsonKeys exist call fetchJson
I feel like using revisions in the names of things is slightly limiting. The real thing you are trying to indicate is the concepts endpoint needs to be used instead of the search endpoint. If at some point in the future we have another need to use the concepts endpoint, what you are adding now should be able to be used to accomplish that. I'd rename fetchRevisionUmm to fetchConceptEndpoint, and make the revisionId parameter optional. Then update the path as necessary
parseAndMergeMetaFields, I don't understand what this function is doing, but I don't think any of it is necessary. If you make the above changes to parseRequestedFields I think you end up with a parseConceptEndpoint that looks very similar to parseJson and parseUmm

I'm sure there will be other issues in concept.js, like you'll have to filter a list of json revisions down to the correct revision from my second example above, but I think if you start with parseRequestedFields returning the right data, all the logic in concept.js should be simplified

macrouch · 2026-02-12T01:39:52Z

src/types/collection.graphql

+  Error: The 'revisions' field cannot be requested when querying a specific revision. 
+  Remove the 'revisionId' parameter from the collection query to fetch all revisions.


This reads like something has gone wrong, when it is just supposed to be informing the user on a condition on this field.

Note: This field is not supported if you are performing a `collection` query and have provided the `revisionId` parameter. `null` will be returned with an error

Now updated.

macrouch · 2026-02-12T01:45:41Z

src/resolvers/collection.js

+      const { revisionId } = info.variableValues?.params ?? {}
+      if (revisionId) {
+        throw new Error(
+          'The "revisions" field cannot be requested when querying a specific revision. '
+      + 'Remove the "revisionId" parameter from the collection query to fetch all revisions.'
+        )
+      }


When I use the example error query in your PR description, this revisionId is undefined and this error is not what is thrown. I get a CMR error: "The mime type [application/json] is not supported when all_revisions = true."

I'm not sure why this is on two lines

solved issue with revisionId undefined. Now just store it in the context, that cover all ways how the parameter revisionId is placed in the query.

GQL-118: Query for a concept by a specific revision-id

41ef594

htranho marked this pull request as draft January 26, 2026 23:11

htranho requested review from cgokey, eudoroolivares2016, macrouch, mandyparson and william-valencia January 26, 2026 23:19

htranho added 8 commits January 28, 2026 10:58

GQL-118: Format some comments

d0bbd21

GQL-118: Remove console log

922d303

GQL-118: Set flag singleRevisionRequest

40b6278

GQL-118: Get revisionId from args in resolver, no need to pass in fro…

0fbc759

…m concept

GQL-118: Add singleRevisionRequest only when result

93c1312

GQL-118: case of revisionId not present in the requested result

6555b0a

GQL-118: Move ummKey check to parseRevisionUmm

fa993e3

GQL-118: Add test for case of only conceptId is asked

2fcaea8

htranho commented Jan 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/cmr/concepts/concept.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

htranho commented Jan 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/resolvers/collection.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

htranho added 6 commits January 29, 2026 15:45

GQL-118: Update for meta fields processing, merging

54eb1e7

GQL-118: Pass conceptId

532d3fb

GQL-118: Fix tests

bc41993

GQL-118: Add jsonKeys fetching

8bf7393

GQL-118: Fix tests

7d60695

GQL-118: Npm audit fix

313971d

htranho marked this pull request as ready for review January 30, 2026 22:47

htranho changed the title ~~GQL-118: Query for a concept by a specific revision-id~~ GQL-118: Query for a collection by a specific revision-id Jan 30, 2026

htranho marked this pull request as draft February 2, 2026 15:12

htranho marked this pull request as ready for review February 2, 2026 18:08

eudoroolivares2016 previously requested changes Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

macrouch requested changes Feb 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

GQL-118: Use source to determine revision request

c1fa459

eudoroolivares2016 reviewed Feb 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

GQL-118: Move some of key list processing to parseRequestedFields

d9a7881

htranho added 4 commits February 4, 2026 12:37

GQL-118: Add error message, use revisionId from info object

85b627c

GQL-118: Run npm audit fix

2c6f443

GQL-118: Add error message to graphql file

7482f0b

GQL-118: Use this.getItems

33365fb

mandyparson reviewed Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

GQL-118: Fix tests

2163962

mandyparson approved these changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

eudoroolivares2016 requested review from eudoroolivares2016 and macrouch February 6, 2026 20:00

htranho added 4 commits February 9, 2026 18:17

GQL-118: Fix for case of ummKeys is empty

8289df1

GQL-118: Rebase from main

f1f095e

Merge branch 'main' into GQL-118

b5623c6

GQL-118: Fix parse method for ummResponse

5eb571d

eudoroolivares2016 approved these changes Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

macrouch requested changes Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

htranho added 5 commits February 12, 2026 15:21

GQL-118: Rename fetchRevisionUmm to fetchConceptEndpoint

29870a0

GQL-118: revisionId in context, update revisions error message

7120dad

GQL-118: Refactoring

ec64712

GQL-118: Fix tests

1d0b6d9

GQL-118: Reorder expected return values

f1653a0

eudoroolivares2016 self-requested a review March 2, 2026 22:54

		Error: The 'revisions' field cannot be requested when querying a specific revision.
		Remove the 'revisionId' parameter from the collection query to fetch all revisions.

Conversation

htranho commented Jan 26, 2026 • edited by eudoroolivares2016 Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Overview

What is the feature?

What is the Solution?

What areas of the application does this impact?

Testing

Reproduction steps

Checklist

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 26, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

macrouch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mandyparson commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

htranho commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

macrouch left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

htranho commented Jan 26, 2026 •

edited by eudoroolivares2016

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 26, 2026 •

edited

Loading

macrouch left a comment •

edited

Loading