fix: work item assignee update validation

[prateekshourya29]

Description

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Improvement (change that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Code refactoring
• Performance improvements
• Documentation update

Screenshots and Media (if applicable)

Test Scenarios

References

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved issue assignment handling so that when an empty assignment list is submitted, existing assignees are correctly cleared.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The update modifies the conditional check within the update method of the IssueCreateSerializer class in the apiserver/plane/app/serializers/issue.py file. Previously, the method required that valid_assignee_ids was not None and had a non-zero length. The change updates this to only check for non-None, causing the code block for deleting and creating issue assignees to trigger even with an empty list.

Changes

File	Change Summary
apiserver/.../serializers/issue.py	Modified the update method in IssueCreateSerializer to adjust the conditional check for valid_assignee_ids from checking len(valid_assignee_ids) to only verifying it is not None.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant C as Client
    participant ICS as IssueCreateSerializer
    participant DB as Database

    C->>ICS: Call update(instance, validated_data)
    alt valid_assignee_ids is not None
        ICS->>DB: Delete existing IssueAssignee records
        ICS->>DB: Bulk create new IssueAssignee records (even when list is empty)
    else
        ICS->>C: Skip assignee update
    end

Loading

Possibly related PRs

• [WEB-3488] improvement: assignee validation for work item creation #6701: Updates the update method logic in IssueCreateSerializer alongside introducing a new method for handling valid assignee IDs.
• fix: issue serializer to remove deleted labels and assignees #6241: Alters the update method in IssueSerializer with similar assignee handling modifications, directly relating to the changes in this PR.

Suggested labels

🐛bug, ⚙️backend

Suggested reviewers

• pablohashescobar
• NarayanBavisetti
• sriramveeraghanta

Poem

I'm a rabbit, hopping with delight,
Code carrots crunching in the night.
The update leaps with a brand new twist,
Clearing old paths with a gentle flick of my wrist.
Bugs scurry away as new logic takes flight!
🥕🐰 Happy coding, day and night!

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

apiserver/plane/app/serializers/issue.py (1)

221-239: Consider adding a comment explaining the empty list behavior.

While the code logic is correct, it would be helpful to add a comment explaining that an empty list is intentionally allowed to remove all assignees. This would make the intentional behavior change clearer to future developers.

        if valid_assignee_ids is not None:
+            # An empty list is allowed and will remove all assignees
            IssueAssignee.objects.filter(issue=instance).delete()
            try:
                IssueAssignee.objects.bulk_create(

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ac6fef3 and 577519f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• apiserver/plane/app/serializers/issue.py (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)

• GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript)
• GitHub Check: Analyze (python)

🔇 Additional comments (3)

apiserver/plane/app/serializers/issue.py (3)

219-220: Fixed assignee update validation to correctly handle empty lists.

This change correctly modifies the condition in the update method to handle the case where valid_assignee_ids is an empty list. The previous logic only processed assignee updates when the list wasn't empty, which meant users couldn't remove all assignees from an issue. Now, when users submit an empty list of assignees (as opposed to None), the system will correctly delete all existing assignees.

Note that this change introduces a slight behavior difference between create and update methods:

• In create (line 150), an empty list still triggers the default assignee logic
• In update, an empty list now removes all assignees without applying a default

This difference makes sense from a UX perspective as an empty list during update likely indicates an explicit user action to remove all assignees.

---

149-151: Consider aligning create and update method behaviors for assignee handling.

There's now a behavioral difference between how empty assignee lists are handled in create vs update:

• In create: Empty list → Use default assignee
• In update: Empty list → Remove all assignees

For consistency, you might want to consider aligning these behaviors if it makes sense for your product requirements. If the different behavior is intentional, consider adding a comment explaining why.

This is a minor observation about the behavioral difference and not a bug. Please verify with product/UX teams if this difference in handling is intentional and expected.

---

150-185:

❓ Verification inconclusive

Verify UI handling of assignee removal.

To ensure this bug fix works end-to-end, verify that the frontend UI sends an empty list (not null or None) when a user wants to remove all assignees. If the UI sends null instead of an empty list, this fix won't have the desired effect.

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if the frontend sends an empty list rather than null when removing assignees

# Look for API calls related to issue updates with assignee_ids
rg -l "assignee_ids.*\[\]" --type js

Length of output: 38

---

I'm not getting a conclusive result from the initial grep. Let's run a more comprehensive search to check for patterns where the UI might be sending an empty array for assignee_ids. This will help verify whether the frontend is actually sending an empty list when assignees are removed.

Please execute this script and share the output so we can ensure the bug fix is verified end-to-end.

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Searching for frontend API calls where assignee_ids is explicitly set to an empty array.
rg -l "assignee_ids\\s*:\\s*\\[\\s*\\]" --type js --type jsx --type ts

Length of output: 95

---

Action: Verify Frontend Sends an Empty Array on Assignee Removal

Our initial search didn't yield conclusive results due to file type issues. Please re-run the following command to search across JavaScript, JSX, and TypeScript files using glob filters:

#!/bin/bash
# Searching for explicit empty array assignment to assignee_ids in frontend API calls
rg -g "*.js" -g "*.jsx" -g "*.ts" -l "assignee_ids\\s*:\\s*\\[\\s*\\]"

If this search again returns no output, manually verify that the UI sends an empty array (and not null) when a user removes all assignees. Confirming this behavior is essential for ensuring the bug fix works fully end-to-end.