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

CB-390: Shouldn't have to choose a license just to save drafts #417

Closed
wants to merge 13 commits into from

Conversation

amCap1712
Copy link
Member

Supersedes #327

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

amCap1712 added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 26, 2022
This is needed for #417.

Unselected radio field results in the value of the field being 'None'
not None. This is fixed in newer versions. In newer versions, a few
imports have changed and email_validators needs to be added a dependency
separately to use EmailField.
@amCap1712 amCap1712 mentioned this pull request Sep 26, 2022
@amCap1712 amCap1712 force-pushed the optional_license branch 2 times, most recently from 278ab14 to cd613e0 Compare September 26, 2022 13:54
@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

KasukabeDefenceForce and others added 11 commits October 4, 2022 16:40
To allow for draft reviews without a license, we need to make license_id
NULLABLE in reviews table. Also add a constraint to ensure that license_id
is always NOT NULL for published reviews. Update dumps schema version
because of the same reason.
license_id can be nullable for draft reviews so need to use LEFT JOIN.
manual validation validate_license_choice will take care of choice
validation. see comments for rationale.
@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@github-actions
Copy link

Unit Test Results

    1 files  ±0      1 suites  ±0   2m 20s ⏱️ +45s
202 tests +4  202 ✔️ +4  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit a5d2d1f. ± Comparison against base commit bb543a4.

@alastair
Copy link
Collaborator

This doesn't make sense any more in the context of #474, closing

@alastair alastair closed this Oct 26, 2022
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.

3 participants