Skip to content

[EDGEDB] ProjectRules - Queries #3211

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

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

atGit2021
Copy link
Contributor

@atGit2021 atGit2021 commented May 16, 2024

Monday task
This PR is dependent on the following PR which contains the initial creation of the splitDb2 repo files along with a new project rules module.

This PR ports the remaining custom queries from project rules into their respective repo files, but should NOT be merged into Develop just yet. Please hold until 3210 is merged first.

@atGit2021 atGit2021 requested a review from bryanjnelson May 16, 2024 19:38
@atGit2021 atGit2021 self-assigned this May 16, 2024
@atGit2021
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bryanjnelson @CarsonF , I'll need your help with the edge repo query method, getPreviousSteps. I tried a bunch of things but none seem to give me the correct return signature. I'm not sure how to do the order by functionality for the step history.

Copy link
Member

@CarsonF CarsonF left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This extraction may be a good the first step, but this really needs to be rewritten all together to match progress report workflow.
This is the only way EdgeDB will be able to use "previous step".

Also "rules" -> "workflow"

@CarsonF
Copy link
Member

CarsonF commented May 21, 2024

Closing in favor of a more robust rewrite we are dev-ing together.

@CarsonF CarsonF closed this May 21, 2024
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