remove-member-field Removing member field from operations table #300
Conversation
Signed-off-by: David Echelberger <[email protected]>
awrichar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me, other than one minor thing noted.
awrichar
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, just noticed one thing in operation.go that does need to be changed.
Signed-off-by: David Echelberger <[email protected]>
peterbroadhurst
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree with pulling this out. There might be a multi-tenant scenario in the future where we need tracking of which identity an operation is associated with (beyond the linked object), but until we have the requirement we won't know what the field should look like.
|
@peterbroadhurst agreed. Right now it's wildly inconsistent what different operations are storing in that field, and nobody is actually reading it. Better to come back to it when we have a real use case. |
Signed-off-by: David Echelberger <[email protected]>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #300 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 224 224
Lines 12380 12370 -10
=========================================
- Hits 12380 12370 -10
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Operations table no longer has the
memberfield associated with it