[PM-10365] Drop OrganizationUser AccessAll #4701
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4701 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 41.78% 41.78% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 1308 1308
Lines 62131 62128 -3
Branches 5725 5725
==========================================
- Hits 25964 25961 -3
Misses 34972 34972
Partials 1195 1195 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
New Issues
Fixed Issues
|
Base automatically changed from
ac/pm-10368/remove-group-accessall-from-sprocs-and-table
to
main
September 2, 2024 05:01
eliykat
force-pushed
the
ac/pm-10365/remove-organizationuser-accessall-from-sprocs-and-table
branch
from
f73c672
to
94a400a
Compare
eliykat
commented
Sep 2, 2024
Comment on lines
35
to
38
| -- Recreate the index without the column | ||
| PRINT N'Recreating index IX_OrganizationUser_UserIdOrganizationIdStatus...'; | ||
| CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_OrganizationUser_UserIdOrganizationIdStatus] | ||
| ON [dbo].[OrganizationUser]([UserId] ASC, [OrganizationId] ASC, [Status] ASC); |
Comment on lines
5
to
6
| IF OBJECT_ID('[dbo].[DF_OrganizationUser_AccessAll]', 'D') IS NULL | ||
| AND COL_LENGTH('[dbo].[OrganizationUser]', 'AccessAll') IS NOT NULL |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rkac-bw the equivalent migraiton for Groups didn't check for the existence of the column (only for the non-existence of the constraint), so it throws an error if run multiple times. Theoretically dbup shouldn't run a migration multiple times, but it is something we try to support. Do you want me to go back and fix that?
…l-from-sprocs-and-table
…l-from-sprocs-and-table
…l-from-sprocs-and-table
…l-from-sprocs-and-table
…l-from-sprocs-and-table
eliykat
force-pushed
the
ac/pm-10365/remove-organizationuser-accessall-from-sprocs-and-table
branch
from
c9850da
to
93bbc0b
Compare
…l-from-sprocs-and-table
…ganizationuser-accessall-from-sprocs-and-table
eliykat
deleted the
ac/pm-10365/remove-organizationuser-accessall-from-sprocs-and-table
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
🎟️ Tracking
https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-10365
📔 Objective
Final step in removing OrganizationUser.AccessAll column:
WARNING: this includes an index rebuild on the
OrganizationUserstable, because the index previously included theAccessAllcolumn. I have dropped & recreated it without this column on the assumption it's still useful for the remaining columns in the index. However we may need to coordinate this index rebuild with BRE.📸 Screenshots
⏰ Reminders before review
🦮 Reviewer guidelines
:+1:) or similar for great changes:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info:question:) for questions:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion:art:) for suggestions / improvements:x:) or:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes