-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Remove existing authentication and cart functionality (#2950) #2969
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2969 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 83.48% 82.64% -0.85%
===========================================
Files 129 117 -12
Lines 13591 12168 -1423
===========================================
- Hits 11347 10056 -1291
+ Misses 2244 2112 -132
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
6ac79e3
to
59b913d
Compare
Unassigning myself and assigning @noah-aviel-dove, as requested by |
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.
Great work. Only a weak observation, not sure if the changes would benefit from having multiple commits, like file/path renames and addition/deletions. However, since it is a refactor, it can be justified for the changes to be done in a single commit.
@achave11 I though about that a little, maybe it looks like having a commit history that looks like:
That might be a better way to track all the changes. @noah-aviel-dove what you think about this? |
Sounds a bit convoluted. I agree with @achave11 that the mixture of full rename/moves and partial additions/deletions does make the changes a little harder to track, but I think it's even harder to tell what's going on when the same files get touched in multiple commits for what is functionally a single change. Having a |
attic/lambdas/service/app.py
Outdated
@@ -0,0 +1,704 @@ | |||
@app.authorizer() |
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.
I feel this file should preserve the import statements referenced in the moved code, otherwise we're not really preserving it.
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.
Hard to tell whether this is correct advice or not without going every file in the attic. It just seems to me that there's a huge number of classes referenced in this code here that might be ambiguous to resolve in the future.
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.
The main reason for the attic is not so much archival but maintaining a list of what used to exist. If you we just deleted files, it would be harder to find the commit that deleted a particular without knowing where it used to exist and what its name was.
To get to the exact original, one can always look at the commit that placed the file into the attic.
ee9cc4e
to
50c8150
Compare
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.
Adding the import statements to the attic introduced conflicts. In light of @hannes-ucsc's clarifying comments, it seems better to omit the import statements from the attic after all.
Additionally, there are several lingering references to the cart functionality throughout the codebase and TF templates:
It's not clear to me whether these fall under the scope of this ticket, since the title only mentioned the "cart service". But the (undocumented) |
The ticket speaks of "cart functionality", so yes, that stuff should be moved to attic as well. Consider collecting everything in a sub-directory of the attic e.g., |
e19f7b8
to
e1e6768
Compare
b548b32
to
d744515
Compare
#2950 Move auth and cart service to attic | ||
========================================= | ||
|
||
1. Before upgrading to this commit, run :: |
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.
d744515
to
0376e84
Compare
Force pushed branch after approval due to force push to |
0376e84
to
d526156
Compare
Unit test not passing in |
d526156
to
80ef6f8
Compare
unable to replicate travis failure locally. |
Author
Author (reindex)
r
tag to commit title or this PR does not require reindexingreindex
label to PR or this PR does not require reindexingAuthor (freebies & chains)
chain
label to the blocking PR or this PR is not chained to another PRAuthor (upgrading)
u
tag to commit title or this PR does not require upgradingupgrade
label to PR or this PR does not require upgradingAuthor (requirements, before every review)
make requirements_update
or this PR leaves requirements*.txt, common.mk and Makefile untouchedR
tag to commit title or this PR leaves requirements*.txt untouchedreqs
label to PR or this PR leaves requirements*.txt untouchedAuthor (before every review)
make integration_test
passes in personal deployment or this PR does not touch functionality that could break the ITdevelop
, squashed old fixupsPrimary reviewer (after approval)
no demo
no sandbox
Operator (before pushing merge the commit)
reindex
label andr
commit title tagno demo
sandbox
or addedno sandbox
labelsandbox
or this PR does not require reindexingsandbox
sandbox
or this PR does not require reindexingsandbox
Operator (after pushing the merge commit)
N reviews
labelling is accurateOperator (reindex)
dev
or this PR does not require reindexingdev
dev
or this PR does not require reindexingdev
prod
or this PR does not require reindexingprod
prod
or this PR does not require reindexingprod
Operator