You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While merging branches in git, Github sends out the same commit notification again on push. As of now this is creating another comment for the same commit, just the branch name is different.
Steps to reproduce
Create one branch, push small change into it with the message mentioned as per wiki - including the Redmine issue number.
github will send a push notification to the webhook URL, and it should create a comment in the redmine issue.
Now merge this branch into another branch on git, push again.
Step 3 will be executed again, branch name would be different. And this will create another comment on the issue for same commit.
Approach
We have to keep track of the commit id/hash, so that when the same comment comes again from github we can restrict it.
Findings
Journal is comment, it has has_many :journal_details, but storing this hash in this table would require a query which can check if the hash exists in this table, if not then only enter a new comment for the hash.
We need to track the hash at issue level, so before inserting a new comment (journal) we can verify if that issue has already received this comment before?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
…cate) then only track it as a issue comment (Journal entry). This does not need to track anything in the Redmine issue/comment entries, so would not need an extra DB query.
While merging branches in git, Github sends out the same commit notification again on push. As of now this is creating another comment for the same commit, just the branch name is different.
Steps to reproduce
Approach
We have to keep track of the commit id/hash, so that when the same comment comes again from github we can restrict it.
Findings
Journal
is comment, it hashas_many :journal_details
, but storing this hash in this table would require a query which can check if the hash exists in this table, if not then only enter a new comment for the hash.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: