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

chore: remove the default intake state #6252

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 23, 2024
Merged

Conversation

NarayanBavisetti
Copy link
Collaborator

@NarayanBavisetti NarayanBavisetti commented Dec 20, 2024

Description

this pull request removes the creation of the default state before creating the intake issue.

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Streamlined issue creation process by removing default state association.
    • Enhanced flexibility in handling project intake views with improved input retrieval.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Refined error handling for project creation and updates, ensuring appropriate responses for existing identifiers and missing entities.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces changes to the IntakeIssueAPIEndpoint class in the apiserver/plane/api/views/intake.py file. The primary modification involves removing the state creation logic during the post method, specifically the code for creating or retrieving a default "Triage" state. This change results in issues being created without an automatically assigned default state, altering the issue creation process. Additionally, modifications to the ProjectAPIEndpoint class in apiserver/plane/api/views/project.py enhance input handling and error management in the patch method.

Changes

File Change Summary
apiserver/plane/api/views/intake.py Removed state creation logic in IntakeIssueAPIEndpoint.post() method
apiserver/plane/api/views/project.py Enhanced input handling for intake_view in ProjectAPIEndpoint.patch() method; refined error handling in post and patch methods

Possibly related PRs

  • [WEB-2696] fix: unable to view intake issue #5875: The changes in this PR address issues related to the POST endpoint for intake issues, which is directly relevant to the modifications made in the IntakeIssueAPIEndpoint class in the main PR.
  • fix: intake toggle #6111: This PR also modifies the ProjectAPIEndpoint class in the same file as the main PR, focusing on the handling of the intake_view, which may relate to how issues are processed in the context of intake.
  • [WEB-2753]fix: intake issue activity #6185: This PR addresses rendering issues related to intake activities, which could be connected to the overall handling of intake issues as discussed in the main PR.

Suggested labels

⚙️backend

Suggested reviewers

  • sriramveeraghanta
  • pushya22

Poem

🐰 A Rabbit's Ode to Stateless Issues 🐰

No more Triage, no default state,
Issues born free, their path to create.
Code simplified, a streamlined view,
Hopping through changes, something new!
Leap of faith in issue's design.

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request. We would love to hear your feedback on Discord.


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 02c354c and ab58a25.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • apiserver/plane/api/views/project.py (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
apiserver/plane/api/views/project.py (2)

261-263: LGTM: Parameter handling improvement

The nested get() pattern provides good backward compatibility by supporting both "inbox_view" and "intake_view" parameters.


261-263: Verify consistency with PR objective

While this change improves parameter handling, the PR's objective is to remove the default intake state. However, the code still creates a default "Triage" state later in this method. This seems inconsistent with the PR's goal.

Let's verify the complete implementation:


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@sriramveeraghanta sriramveeraghanta self-requested a review December 23, 2024 14:56
@sriramveeraghanta sriramveeraghanta merged commit 1735561 into preview Dec 23, 2024
12 of 14 checks passed
@sriramveeraghanta sriramveeraghanta deleted the chore-intake-state branch December 23, 2024 14:56
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