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

Reapply reverted commits #4200

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 19, 2024
Merged

Reapply reverted commits #4200

merged 2 commits into from
Aug 19, 2024

Conversation

dmjb
Copy link
Contributor

@dmjb dmjb commented Aug 19, 2024

Out of the three commits which were reverted, one of them was replaced by #4197 which solves the problem at source. This will undo the other two. Some changes were made to fit with the changes introduced by #4197

Validated against smoke tests by @rdimitrov. I also ran the failing smoke tests against this branch locally.

Summary

Provide a brief overview of the changes and the issue being addressed.
Explain the rationale and any background necessary for understanding the changes.
List dependencies required by this change, if any.

Fixes #(related issue)

Change Type

Mark the type of change your PR introduces:

  • Bug fix (resolves an issue without affecting existing features)
  • Feature (adds new functionality without breaking changes)
  • Breaking change (may impact existing functionalities or require documentation updates)
  • Documentation (updates or additions to documentation)
  • Refactoring or test improvements (no bug fixes or new functionality)

Testing

Outline how the changes were tested, including steps to reproduce and any relevant configurations.
Attach screenshots if helpful.

Review Checklist:

  • Reviewed my own code for quality and clarity.
  • Added comments to complex or tricky code sections.
  • Updated any affected documentation.
  • Included tests that validate the fix or feature.
  • Checked that related changes are merged.

dmjb added 2 commits August 19, 2024 14:00
…4089)

This change allows most of the functionality which previously used the
`rule_evaluations` (and related) tables to use the new evaluation
history tables instead.
@dmjb dmjb requested a review from a team as a code owner August 19, 2024 13:03
return errors.New("no previous alert state")
}

s := prevStatus.AlertStatus.AlertStatusTypes
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since we no longer use left joins, these values are no longer nullable. The changes in #4197 handles the case where there is no prior state.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

coverage: 53.825% (-0.04%) from 53.861%
when pulling 87c4ee2 on re-apply-4089
into bf3ccbf on main.

@dmjb dmjb merged commit d63522d into main Aug 19, 2024
25 of 26 checks passed
@dmjb dmjb deleted the re-apply-4089 branch August 19, 2024 14:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants