Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 19, 2024. It is now read-only.

Refactor/general #644

Merged
merged 536 commits into from
Feb 17, 2024
Merged

Refactor/general #644

merged 536 commits into from
Feb 17, 2024

Conversation

0x4007
Copy link
Member

@0x4007 0x4007 commented Aug 20, 2023

Resolves #574

Refactoring to clean up the codebase.

Based on #643

  • Bounties -> Tasks
  • Removed all Telegram bot code

Secrets
PROJECT_ID -> SUPABASE_PROJECT_ID

I'm not great at the database side. I realized I changed some property names and might have broken the permits database at 03466d6

Included most of @whilefoo's end to end tests but a few dont work like allow and start/stop those are commented out

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Aug 20, 2023

Deploy Preview for ubiquibot-staging failed.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit c1e4852
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/ubiquibot-staging/deploys/6562f360a687cf00088e88ef

@0x4007 0x4007 marked this pull request as ready for review August 20, 2023 13:05
This was referenced Aug 20, 2023
@Draeieg Draeieg self-requested a review August 25, 2023 23:50
Draeieg
Draeieg previously approved these changes Aug 26, 2023
@0x4007 0x4007 added ping and removed ping labels Aug 29, 2023
@0xcodercrane 0xcodercrane dismissed Draeieg’s stale review September 8, 2023 02:10

The merge-base changed after approval.

@wannacfuture
Copy link
Contributor

should I resolve the conflicts? @pavlovcik

@0x4007
Copy link
Member Author

0x4007 commented Sep 14, 2023

This should have merged this in weeks ago. The number of outstanding pull requests is growing every month and this is unacceptable. Most of these code changes in this pull request were simple renaming of variables. It would have taken 15 minutes to review and approve @0xcodercrane

should I resolve the conflicts? @pavlovcik

I did a pass at it because I know the code I wrote, and I've also been looking at all the pull requests so I have sufficient context. I did it quickly in the GitHub UI though. Please ensure that it builds etc.

yarn.lock Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@0xcodercrane 0xcodercrane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We shouldn't delete yarn.lock because it's being used in github ci / netlify ci. Due to permission, we couldn't generate it on both platform. That's why we've been keeping it from the beginning.

@0x4007
Copy link
Member Author

0x4007 commented Sep 15, 2023

@0xcodercrane In this case you should consider just regenerating the lock file and merging instead of kicking the can down the road. I'm not at home so I don't have the capability to from my phone.

@0xcodercrane
Copy link
Contributor

should I merge #643 in prior to this PR? @pavlovcik

@0x4007
Copy link
Member Author

0x4007 commented Sep 19, 2023

Don't think it matters the order regarding conflicts but technically speaking this is branched off of #643 head.

@0x4007
Copy link
Member Author

0x4007 commented Sep 25, 2023

Will need to e2e test and merge

@0x4007 0x4007 marked this pull request as draft October 4, 2023 20:38
@0x4007 0x4007 mentioned this pull request Oct 4, 2023
@0x4007
Copy link
Member Author

0x4007 commented Oct 9, 2023

Review comments at #849

@0x4007 0x4007 linked an issue Jan 29, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@0x4007
Copy link
Member Author

0x4007 commented Feb 17, 2024

@gitcoindev maybe you can help fix the knip CI here

@0x4007 0x4007 merged commit cb08490 into ubiquity:development Feb 17, 2024
5 of 6 checks passed
@BeanieMen
Copy link
Contributor

BeanieMen commented Feb 17, 2024

🎉

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
No open projects
Status: In Progress
9 participants