-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 768
Remove user ids strategy 2 #9806
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
base: remove-user-ids-strategy
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 1 Skipped Deployment
|
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.Scanned FilesNone |
.orderBy([ | ||
{ column: 'created_at', order: 'desc' }, | ||
{ column: 'id', order: 'desc' }, | ||
]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Scouting. Sometimes events are not returned in a deterministic way. E.g. if two events have the exact same created_at
value, sometimes they are returned in a different order. This makes it so we still sort by created_at
, but then if it's the same, we fallback to sorting by id
.
Perhaps we can consider just sorting by id
here and skip sorting by created_at
.
db.runSql( | ||
` | ||
DELETE FROM strategies | ||
WHERE name = 'userWithId' AND built_in = 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unlike e.g.
and not exists (select * from feature_strategies where strategy_name = name limit 1); |
Here we're deleting the strategy even if it's in use. Based on #9800 it seems like this is what we want to do. However, if it's not, this is something we probably need to change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we don't want to delete it. The idea is:
- New installations will not receive it
- Old installations requires manual action from the user
Expands on the work done in #9800