BFD-4837: Fix contract_pbp_number join - #3236
Merged
Merged
Conversation
aschey-forpeople
requested review from
alex-dzeda,
malessi,
mel1-G and
mjburling
as code owners
August 4, 2026 00:30
|
marshallweekley-eng
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2026
mel1-G
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2026
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
JIRA Ticket:
BFD-4837
What Does This PR Do?
FIxes
contract_pbp_numberjoin to not return duplicate primary keys. For records with >1 segment number, we still include the pbp_number record but we set the segment number to null.What Should Reviewers Watch For?
If you're reviewing this PR, please check for these things in particular:
What Security Implications Does This PR Have?
Please indicate if this PR does any of the following:
Adds any new software dependencies
Modifies any security controls
Adds new transmission or storage of data
Any other changes that could possibly affect security?
I have considered the above security implications as it relates to this PR. (If one or more of the above apply, it cannot be merged without the ISSO or team security engineer's (
@sb-benohe) approval.)I have created tests to sufficiently ensure the reliability of my code, if applicable. If this is a modification to an existing piece of code, I have audited the associated tests to ensure everything works as expected.
Validation
Have you fully verified and tested these changes? Is the acceptance criteria met? Please provide reproducible testing instructions, code snippets, or screenshots as applicable.
Ran query against IDR