Rename core developer (take 2) #4639
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Jongmassey
force-pushed
the
Jongmassey/CoreDeveloper-role-might-be-mis-named
branch
2 times, most recently
from
61d63b1
to
31f9050
Compare
Jongmassey
changed the title
Jongmassey
force-pushed
the
Jongmassey/CoreDeveloper-role-might-be-mis-named
branch
2 times, most recently
from
df093e2
to
bd8f5a8
Compare
|
I have tested locally this with a fresh dump of the prod database, running |
Jongmassey
force-pushed
the
Jongmassey/CoreDeveloper-role-might-be-mis-named
branch
4 times, most recently
from
9598117
to
9ca2b76
Compare
Jongmassey
force-pushed
the
Jongmassey/CoreDeveloper-role-might-be-mis-named
branch
from
9ca2b76
to
e9d04b2
Compare
|
I think the non-docs commits should be squished before merging, as they're atomic, I think? You don't want to roll back or deploy any one individually. Re-name and references work together, you need to migrate if your DB has been either side of these commits. |
mikerkelly
reviewed
Oct 4, 2024
mikerkelly
reviewed
Oct 4, 2024
mikerkelly
reviewed
Oct 4, 2024
| @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ | |||
| # Generated by Django 5.1.1 on 2024-10-02 11:00 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is mostly hand-written and should have a docstring explaining why it exists, what the purpose and rationale are, and the approach taken. If anyone need to come back to where we are I think that will be very non-obvious.
mikerkelly
reviewed
Oct 4, 2024
|
@mikerkelly yes, will squash before merge - keeping them separate made it easier for me to iterate on reworking this. |
Jongmassey
force-pushed
the
Jongmassey/CoreDeveloper-role-might-be-mis-named
branch
3 times, most recently
from
1c716e4
to
2af1d21
Compare
Jongmassey
force-pushed
the
Jongmassey/CoreDeveloper-role-might-be-mis-named
branch
from
2af1d21
to
81cc5ed
Compare
Where a role path in the db is not found in the current codebase, create a skeleton permissionless role instead of blowing up. This means we can remove role names from the python code and legacy entries in the db will no longer cause adverse effects. This supports finding of the old roles in (for example) a migration, but leaves these old unknown roles untouched unless they are explicitly acted on.
This role controls access to the Staff Area, role holders might not necessarily be developers, but admin staff. Therefore, Staff Area Administrator was deemed to be a better fit for this role
Coupling of migrations to role classes (be the historic or current) causes difficulties for future changes to role classes. This migration therefore uses local classes which will match database values created from the real role classes, and whose own corresponding database values will parse to real role classes (if existing).
Jongmassey
force-pushed
the
Jongmassey/CoreDeveloper-role-might-be-mis-named
branch
from
81cc5ed
to
81e4354
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
fixes #4604
In order for us to successfully migrate from one role to another, we need to be able to remove the old role from the codebase.
Prior to this PR, there was no graceful handling of the situation where a user record in the db had
roleswhose path was no longer present in the codebase.This change handles this situation more gracefully by creating a skeleton role type with that path (but no model associations or permissions) in such a way that these "legacy" roles round trip from the database.
This change includes the change of name of role in the codebase, this more graceful role parsing, and a migration to change the existing role records in the database. The migration also includes local fake role classes and as such is not coupled to the old
CoreDeveloperor newStaffAreaAdministratorroles in the codebase.