remove news.featured property #3380
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
gideonthomas
approved these changes
Jul 25, 2019
patjouk
reviewed
Jul 29, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this field still used anywhere in the code? If yes, that's when you will get 5xx. If you already cleaned up the code, make sure it's already deployed before merging this one.
If you have doubts, you can checks the docs I wrote about migrations here: https://github.com/mozilla/foundation.mozilla.org/blob/master/docs/workflow.md#django-migrations-what-to-do-when-working-on-backward-incompatible-migrations
|
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we're not using it anywhere anymore, which is why I'm hopeful it won't be a problem this time round anymore. But that template update was a great idea! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #3379
Related PRs/issues #721, #3296
The last time we landed this we ran into a caching/desync issue where the old code was using the updated db and things crashed because the old code was trying to load a column that the new db didn't have anymore...
I don't know if that's still going to be the case, but last time we discovered that rather than rolling back the code change, we could have waited 2 minutes for things to sync back up, so.... maybe we'll have to do this again when we deploy?