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

fix: Update available plan to remove trial condition #379

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 8, 2024

Conversation

RulaKhaled
Copy link
Contributor

Purpose/Motivation

What is the feature? Why is this being done?
We want to roll out the team plan to all orgs that has less than 11 activated users.

Links to relevant tickets

codecov/engineering-team#1122

What does this PR do?

Include a brief description of the changes in this PR. Bullet points are your friend.

  • Remove trial conditions to serve this plan to basic and free users
  • Fix tests

Notes to Reviewer

Anything to note to the team? Any tips on how to review, or where to start?

Legal Boilerplate

Look, I get it. The entity doing business as "Sentry" was incorporated in the State of Delaware in 2015 as Functional Software, Inc. In 2022 this entity acquired Codecov and as result Sentry is going to need some rights from me in order to utilize my contributions in this PR. So here's the deal: I retain all rights, title and interest in and to my contributions, and by keeping this boilerplate intact I confirm that Sentry can use, modify, copy, and redistribute my contributions, under Sentry's choice of terms.

@@ -126,18 +126,12 @@ def available_plans(self, owner: Owner) -> List[PlanData]:
if owner and sentry.is_sentry_user(owner=owner):
available_plans += SENTRY_PAID_USER_PLAN_REPRESENTATIONS.values()

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we be using plan_activated_users or plan_user_count? Say they have purchased 100 seats but only 10 have been activated, do we want to show Team plan as an option?

We had to switch to plan_activated_users from plan_user_count because trial plan sets the plan_user_count to some fixed large number, so we just used plan_activated_users. Now that we want to surface this plan to non-trial plans, how do we want to handle this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We still wanna go with activated users, here's what AJ said:

I believe we want to stick with plan activated users - my thought process on this is that this is who is actually using the product, if you only have 10 users I’d want them to be on the most economically sensible plan for them, even if it means a downgrade from pro to team - same logic applies when canceling, even if they reduce # of users AND downgrade to Team that’s still preferable to the alternative of giving them the less activated save offer (30% off pro) and having them maybe choose Team

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 8, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (df07ebd) 95.75% compared to head (99ef43e) 95.75%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main    #379   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   95.75   95.75           
=====================================
  Files        749     749           
  Lines      17063   17068    +5     
=====================================
+ Hits       16338   16343    +5     
  Misses       725     725           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 96.07% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unit-latest-uploader 96.07% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@codecov-staging
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (df07ebd) 96.07% compared to head (99ef43e) 96.07%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #379   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.07%   96.07%           
=======================================
  Files         634      634           
  Lines       16545    16550    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        15895    15900    +5     
  Misses        650      650           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 96.07% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unit-latest-uploader 96.07% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Coverage Δ
plan/service.py 96.82% <100.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
plan/test_plan.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Impacted file tree graph

@codecov-qa
Copy link

codecov-qa bot commented Feb 8, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (df07ebd) 96.07% compared to head (99ef43e) 96.07%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #379   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.07%   96.07%           
=======================================
  Files         634      634           
  Lines       16545    16550    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        15895    15900    +5     
  Misses        650      650           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 96.07% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unit-latest-uploader 96.07% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@RulaKhaled RulaKhaled merged commit 3124dbf into main Feb 8, 2024
22 checks passed
@RulaKhaled RulaKhaled deleted the team-plan-tweak branch February 8, 2024 13:35
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.

2 participants