Skip to content

Restore applied migration 0042 - #1863

Merged
Asherlc merged 9 commits into
mainfrom
Asherlc/fix-climbing-data-display
Jul 22, 2026
Merged

Asherlc merged 9 commits into
mainfrom
Asherlc/fix-climbing-data-display

Conversation

@Asherlc

@Asherlc Asherlc commented Jul 22, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

  • restore 0042_strength_set_activity_id_not_null.sql to the exact bytes production applied
  • document the migration integrity failure and consumer recovery in the incident baseline

Root cause

Production applied the first PR #1552 version of migration 0042, then later commits in the same PR rewrote that already-applied file before merge. The deployed ledger therefore records SHA-256 bdbd8c..., while main contained cd2800....

Validation

  • restored file SHA-256 matches the production ledger exactly
  • pnpm tsx scripts/migration-policy.ts drizzle/0042_strength_set_activity_id_not_null.sql
  • pnpm vitest run scripts/migration-policy.test.ts
  • pnpm vitest run src/db/postgres-migrator.test.ts
  • git diff --check

Summary by cubic

Restores migration 0042 to exactly match what production applied, fixing the migration integrity mismatch and unblocking deployment of the climbing activity detail fix. Updates the incident baseline with the cause and recovery steps.

  • Migration

    • Restored drizzle/0042_strength_set_activity_id_not_null.sql to the applied version by removing the redundant constraint validation and keeping only ALTER COLUMN activity_id SET NOT NULL.
    • Verified the file matches production’s migration ledger and passes policy and migrator tests.
  • Docs

    • Added incident details covering the mismatch, integrity checks, and consumer recovery.

Written for commit c6f9a02. Summary will update on new commits.

Review in cubic

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings July 22, 2026 18:57
@cursor

cursor Bot commented Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed.

Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs.

@codereviewbot-ai

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🤖 Review skipped: Repository rate limit exceeded. Free accounts are limited to 2 reviews per 4 hours per repository. Upgrade to a paid plan for unlimited reviews.

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry @Asherlc, you have reached your weekly rate limit of 500000 diff characters.

Please try again later or upgrade to continue using Sourcery

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

@qodo-code-review

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Qodo reviews are paused for this user.

Troubleshooting steps vary by plan Learn more →

On a Teams plan?
Reviews resume once this user has a paid seat and their Git account is linked in Qodo.
Link Git account →

Using GitHub Enterprise Server, GitLab Self-Managed, or Bitbucket Data Center?
These require an Enterprise plan - Contact us
Contact us →

@greptile-apps greptile-apps Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Your trial has ended. Reactivate Greptile to resume code reviews.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@Asherlc, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 6 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: ac30c30f-b619-4706-9049-cbc764c800c3

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2ec2eb1 and c6f9a02.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • docs/production-incident-baseline.md
  • drizzle/0042_strength_set_activity_id_not_null.sql

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@Asherlc
Asherlc enabled auto-merge (squash) July 22, 2026 18:57
@Asherlc
Asherlc merged commit 1fac0dc into main Jul 22, 2026
98 checks passed
@Asherlc
Asherlc deleted the Asherlc/fix-climbing-data-display branch July 22, 2026 19:08
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