Skip to content
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

rename field #396

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 20, 2024
Merged

rename field #396

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 20, 2024

Conversation

markdboyd
Copy link
Contributor

Changes proposed in this pull request:

  • rename field so that it uses new sql type

Things to check

  • For any logging statements, is there any chance that they could be logging sensitive data?
  • Are log statements using a logging library with a logging level set? Setting a logging level means that log statements "below" that level will not be written to the output. For example, if the logging level is set to INFO and debugging statements are written with log.debug or similar, then they won't be written to the otput, which can prevent unintentional leaks of sensitive data.

Security considerations

None, just renaming the field so that the column has the correct type in SQL, since GORM will not always change a field's type

@markdboyd markdboyd requested a review from a team as a code owner December 20, 2024 19:38
@markdboyd markdboyd enabled auto-merge December 20, 2024 19:38
Copy link
Contributor

@JasonTheMain JasonTheMain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good

@markdboyd markdboyd added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 20, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit cfd14a5 Dec 20, 2024
1 check passed
@markdboyd markdboyd deleted the rename-field branch December 20, 2024 19:42
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.

2 participants