Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

fix: rewrite login type migrations #16978

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 18, 2025
Merged

fix: rewrite login type migrations #16978

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 18, 2025

Conversation

SasSwart
Copy link
Contributor

When trying to add system users, we discovered an issue in two migrations that added values to the login_type enum.
After some consideration, we decided to retroactively correct them.

@SasSwart SasSwart requested review from Emyrk and removed request for Emyrk March 18, 2025 11:50
@SasSwart SasSwart changed the title fix: retroactively fix how we add to the login_type enum fix: fix additions the addition of new login types retroactively Mar 18, 2025
@SasSwart SasSwart changed the title fix: fix additions the addition of new login types retroactively fix: correct additions the addition of new login types retroactively Mar 18, 2025
@SasSwart SasSwart changed the title fix: correct additions the addition of new login types retroactively fix: login type migrations Mar 18, 2025
@SasSwart SasSwart changed the title fix: login type migrations fix: rewrite login type migrations Mar 18, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@dannykopping dannykopping left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for sorting this out 👍

-- The original disregarded the warning in create_migration.sh.
-- As a result, it was not possible to insert a user with the "none" login type
-- in a migration.
-- The new implementation makes the same changes as the original, but
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: this comment should rather just going into the PR description, and the original argument should be copied over as well. Linking to a GH commit might not always work, or be difficult to find once the comment is resolved.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm going to keep a trimmed version of the comment in the migration if its all the same, but I will update the PR description with some more detail.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good; for consistency should it not go in both files then?

@SasSwart SasSwart marked this pull request as ready for review March 18, 2025 12:17
@SasSwart SasSwart merged commit a3f6308 into main Mar 18, 2025
30 checks passed
@SasSwart SasSwart deleted the jjs/fix-migrations branch March 18, 2025 12:47
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 18, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants