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

#3738 - SIMS To SFAS Bridge DB Migrations and Scheduler Setup #3785

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 11, 2024

Conversation

dheepak-aot
Copy link
Collaborator

@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot commented Oct 9, 2024

SIMS To SFAS Bridge DB Migrations and Scheduler Setup

DB Migration

  • DB Migration to create new table sims.sfas_bridge_logs (Table name modified to plural and the column for file name little different in comparison with technical AC).
  • The table sims.sfas_bridge_logs has only creation respective audit columns as it is never expected to receive update.
  • DB migration to add the new scheduler sims-to-sfas-integration. It is scheduled to run at 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM 4:00 PM 8:00 AM with cron expression 0 0,4,8,12,16,20 * * *
  • Added Enum and other dependencies to enable the scheduler.

Rollback Evidence

image

image

@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot self-assigned this Oct 9, 2024
@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot added Queue Consumers DB DB migration involved labels Oct 10, 2024
@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot marked this pull request as ready for review October 10, 2024 06:53
Comment on lines 6 to 7
created_at TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW(),
creator INT NULL DEFAULT NULL REFERENCES sims.users(id)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a value in adding these columns?
I would not mind having them removed or maybe the creator removed.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have these columns as the System is inserting this data. Please let me know if there is a downside of having them.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For the created_at I see a benefit. For the creator it will always be the system. I do not see a reason to keep the creator. Since it is a SFAS table it would not be a blocker.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Removed creator is removed. And rollback tested.

image

Copy link
Collaborator

@andrewsignori-aot andrewsignori-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice start, minor comments only, please take a look.

Copy link
Collaborator

@bidyashish bidyashish left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Looks Good

Copy link

Copy link

Backend Unit Tests Coverage Report

Totals Coverage
Statements: 21.88% ( 3497 / 15981 )
Methods: 9.88% ( 197 / 1993 )
Lines: 25.57% ( 3083 / 12059 )
Branches: 11.25% ( 217 / 1929 )

Copy link
Collaborator

@andrewsignori-aot andrewsignori-aot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for making the changes, looks good 👍

Copy link

E2E Workflow Workers Coverage Report

Totals Coverage
Statements: 58.64% ( 509 / 868 )
Methods: 52.88% ( 55 / 104 )
Lines: 62.27% ( 411 / 660 )
Branches: 41.35% ( 43 / 104 )

Copy link

E2E Queue Consumers Coverage Report

Totals Coverage
Statements: 83.88% ( 1046 / 1247 )
Methods: 83.59% ( 107 / 128 )
Lines: 84.91% ( 895 / 1054 )
Branches: 67.69% ( 44 / 65 )

Copy link

E2E SIMS API Coverage Report

Totals Coverage
Statements: 65.62% ( 5524 / 8418 )
Methods: 63.14% ( 680 / 1077 )
Lines: 69.75% ( 4367 / 6261 )
Branches: 44.17% ( 477 / 1080 )

@dheepak-aot dheepak-aot added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 11, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 1943bed Oct 11, 2024
20 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
DB DB migration involved Queue Consumers
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants