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

Make requests to RC API in a consistent way, using the same contract ID #1175

Open
1 task
adinuca opened this issue Jan 8, 2019 · 5 comments
Open
1 task

Comments

@adinuca
Copy link
Contributor

adinuca commented Jan 8, 2019

Why

RC subsites make the same requests to RC API using the contract_id in some places and the open_contracting_id in other places. We should be consistent.

What

  • open_contracting_id is used everywhere where we are requesting data about a contract from RC-API

Notes

This is a follow up issue for #1172 .

@adinuca
Copy link
Contributor Author

adinuca commented Jan 14, 2019

Hi @anjesh , any idea when this will be done?
Thank you!

@anjesh
Copy link
Collaborator

anjesh commented Jan 16, 2019

@charlesyoung for your decision on whether to move forward with this or not? Not urgent but helps with the performance.

@charlesyoung charlesyoung added this to the Unscheduled milestone Jan 16, 2019
@charlesyoung
Copy link

This is something we need to look at but lets put in on hold for now.

@adinuca
Copy link
Contributor Author

adinuca commented Jan 17, 2019

Hi @charlesyoung ,
This issue and #1176 were raised due to the outage caused by the migration of Elasticsearch. @anjesh and his team might be able to them faster than us because they are more familiar with how RC works, but we can also do them if needed.
This fixes should allow us to scale down Elasticsearch.

Let us know what you think.

@adinuca
Copy link
Contributor Author

adinuca commented Nov 22, 2019

@charlesyoung , this should still be done at some point.

@anjesh anjesh removed their assignment Dec 29, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants