-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 401
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
feat: async the logic for cloning feature states into a cloned environment #4005
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 3 Skipped Deployments
|
Uffizzi Preview |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4005 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 97.30% 97.30%
=======================================
Files 1173 1174 +1
Lines 40835 40862 +27
=======================================
+ Hits 39733 39760 +27
Misses 1102 1102 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Note that this PR is only marked as draft as we need to discuss with the FE team how to implement the 'pending creation' logic. I don't want to review / merge this PR before then as it includes a migration that might need to change. |
# Conflicts: # api/environments/models.py
423d264
to
2a662af
Compare
# Conflicts: # api/environments/serializers.py
Docker builds report
|
Thanks for submitting a PR! Please check the boxes below:
pre-commit
to check lintingdocs/
if required so people know about the feature!Changes
Adds a new field to the clone environment endpoint which allows the creation of feature states to be offloaded to the task processor. This stemmed from work I did to handle the cloning of an environment that is using v2 versioning, however, even the cloning of an environment on the old versioning system is pretty intensive.
This PR also adds a new field
is_creating
to the environment model which can be used by the frontend to determine when an environment has been successfully cloned.Related issue: #4489
How did you test this code?
Added a new unit test and updated existing ones where needed, but I have not changed the default behaviour so existing test coverage should be sufficient in most cases.