Skip to content

Conversation

@Ante-Koceic
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@Ante-Koceic Ante-Koceic marked this pull request as ready for review December 6, 2023 11:12
Copy link
Contributor

@dejan-crocoder dejan-crocoder left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In summary, it's fine, give-or-take a few redundant database queries.
Would still be good to use transactions/batches where possible I think. I'd personally be reluctant to batches since the type definitions are bad

Copy link
Member

@davidabram davidabram left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🤷

@davidabram davidabram merged commit e96e79f into main Dec 12, 2023
@davidabram davidabram deleted the fix/tool-169-fix-adding-forge-users branch December 12, 2023 09:47
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.

4 participants