Skip to content

BOM-2781: New codemods on OpenedX (4)#28779

Merged
mzulqarnain1 merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
codemods-openedx-4
Nov 1, 2021
Merged

BOM-2781: New codemods on OpenedX (4)#28779
mzulqarnain1 merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
codemods-openedx-4

Conversation

@mzulqarnain1
Copy link
Contributor

@mzulqarnain1 mzulqarnain1 requested a review from a team September 17, 2021 10:06
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
# Generated by Django 2.2.24 on 2021-09-23 09:35
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Given that we need to edit the previous migrations anyway, it feels like we should be able to do it in a way that renders this migration unnecessary. Just update the field definitions in the previous migrations to match the new verisons here, I don't think it should produce any actual database changes.

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
# Generated by Django 2.2.24 on 2021-09-23 09:35
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same here, can we avoid this new migration?

from django.test.utils import override_settings
from django.urls import reverse
from django.utils.http import urlquote_plus
from urllib.parse import quote_plus
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably should move for isort compliance.

from django.contrib import auth
from django.template.loader import render_to_string
from django.utils.http import urlquote_plus
from urllib.parse import quote_plus
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

isort again.

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
# Generated by Django 2.2.24 on 2021-09-23 09:35
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we avoid creating this one also?

@openedx openedx deleted a comment from edx-status-bot Oct 28, 2021
@edx-status-bot
Copy link

Your PR has finished running tests. There were no failures.

@mzulqarnain1 mzulqarnain1 merged commit 7aadf55 into master Nov 1, 2021
@mzulqarnain1 mzulqarnain1 deleted the codemods-openedx-4 branch November 1, 2021 13:05
@edx-pipeline-bot
Copy link
Contributor

EdX Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the staging environment in preparation for a release to production.

@edx-pipeline-bot
Copy link
Contributor

EdX Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the production environment.

mraarif pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2021
cmltaWt0 pushed a commit to cmltaWt0/edx-platform that referenced this pull request Dec 13, 2021
edx-community-bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2021
<!--

🍁🍁
🍁🍁🍁🍁         🍁 Note: the Maple master branch has been created.  Please consider whether your change
    🍁🍁🍁🍁     should also be applied to Maple. If so, make another pull request against the
🍁🍁🍁🍁         open-release/maple.master branch, or ping @nedbat for help or questions.
🍁🍁

Please give your pull request a short but descriptive title.
Use conventional commits to separate and summarize commits logically:
https://open-edx-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/oep-0051-bp-conventional-commits.html

Use this template as a guide. Omit sections that don't apply. You may link to information rather than copy it.
More details about the template are at openedx/openedx-proposals#180
(link will be updated when that document merges)
-->

## Description

cherry-picked 7aadf55 from master branch to make changes availabe in maple release.

## Supporting information

Relevant JIRA : https://openedx.atlassian.net/browse/BOM-2781
BTR issue: openedx/wg-build-test-release#105
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.

5 participants