-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Prepare to migrate to the new versioning system #65
Prepare to migrate to the new versioning system #65
Conversation
Thanks a ton for this! I'm reviewing the code now and just to confirm, that if this is merged we are good to push our backlog of changes to prod (With of course the needed db changes) correct? But again thanks for the contribution! |
Yes, but maybe it's better to wait for the other changes in #64 |
Copy that! Sounds like a plan |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall these changes look good. I'll want to dig a little deeper during testing. but at a readonly review this is looking great so far, and looks like it's changing exactly what has been discussed previously.
Like the cleaning up of our tests, and bundling the Names Supply Chain Attack fixes in here.
Thanks for all the effort!
Requirements
Filling out the template is required.
All new code requires tests to ensure against regressions.
Have you ran tests against this code?
Description of the Change
This is the first part of #64 and contains #62. I tried to introduce a view to help in sorting the versions but unfortunately it doesn't work because the order is lost while joining, so we are forced to write the ORDER BY clause every time we do a query.
getOrderField
internal function to retrieve the proper column