Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(migrations): remove features/0060 set environment not null #2738

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 5, 2023

Conversation

gagantrivedi
Copy link
Member

@gagantrivedi gagantrivedi commented Sep 5, 2023

Thanks for submitting a PR! Please check the boxes below:

  • I have run pre-commit to check linting
  • I have filled in the "Changes" section below?
  • I have filled in the "How did you test this code" section below?
  • I have used a Conventional Commit title for this Pull Request

Changes

Revert 55a9ef7

How did you test this code?

N/A

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Sep 5, 2023

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
docs ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Sep 5, 2023 11:48am
flagsmith-frontend-preview ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Sep 5, 2023 11:48am
flagsmith-frontend-staging ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Sep 5, 2023 11:48am

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 5, 2023

Uffizzi Preview deployment-35218 was deleted.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 5, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: -0.01% ⚠️

Comparison is base (55a9ef7) 95.48% compared to head (190a077) 95.47%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2738      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.48%   95.47%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         994      993       -1     
  Lines       27939    27909      -30     
==========================================
- Hits        26677    26647      -30     
  Misses       1262     1262              
Files Changed Coverage Δ
api/app/settings/common.py 87.95% <ø> (ø)
api/features/models.py 93.60% <ø> (ø)
api/tests/unit/features/test_migrations.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)

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

@matthewelwell
Copy link
Contributor

So, I guess there are some considerations here:

  1. Should we revert the change from the migration in the staging DB?
  2. Should we delete the record in the django_migrations table in the production db?

Since the migration hasn't materially changed the behaviour of the code we can probably get away with doing neither of these, but it might be slightly confusing to see.

I would recommend that we do do both.

@gagantrivedi
Copy link
Member Author

So, I guess there are some considerations here:

1. Should we revert the change from the migration in the staging DB?

2. Should we delete the record in the django_migrations table in the production db?

Since the migration hasn't materially changed the behaviour of the code we can probably get away with doing neither of these, but it might be slightly confusing to see.

I would recommend that we do do both.

Yeah, both would be ideal

@matthewelwell matthewelwell merged commit 3aed121 into main Sep 5, 2023
@matthewelwell matthewelwell deleted the hotfix/revert-fs-migrations branch September 5, 2023 14:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api Issue related to the REST API
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants