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

[change] Remove customization for checks and replies #336 #360

Conversation

totallynotvaishnav
Copy link
Member

Closes #336

@totallynotvaishnav totallynotvaishnav force-pushed the issues/336-remove-customizations-for-checks-and-replies branch from 7b32cac to 87a37ef Compare December 24, 2021 14:42
@totallynotvaishnav
Copy link
Member Author

@devkapilbansal could you review it?

Copy link
Member

@devkapilbansal devkapilbansal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @totallynotvaishnav
I haven't tested it but looks like the PR is in right direction.

Here, are some changes that I can suggest 👇

P.S. :- Documentation needs to be updated too

@@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ class RadiusCheckForm(ModeSwitcherForm):
label=_('Value'),
required=False,
max_length=radcheck_value_field.max_length,
widget=forms.PasswordInput(),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why this field is converted to CharField

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My bad. I thought it was no longer needed.

'created',
'modified',
]
search_fields = ['username', 'value']
list_filter = [
DuplicateListFilter,
('organization', MultitenantOrgFilter),
ExpiredListFilter,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This filter should also be removed from all filters

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will remove it.

@pandafy pandafy added this to To do (general) in OpenWISP Contributor's Board via automation Jan 19, 2022
@pandafy pandafy moved this from To do (general) to In progress in OpenWISP Contributor's Board Jan 19, 2022
@@ -19,12 +19,7 @@
)

from . import settings as app_settings
from .base.admin_actions import disable_action, enable_action
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can't see these two removed anywhere

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I removed it in line 115.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Member

@devkapilbansal devkapilbansal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@totallynotvaishnav I would suggest you to run tests locally too. Also, coverage can be a go to way if you want to know whether the code written is covered by tests or not.

For e.g. :- See that the coverage for admin actions file is decreased to 0

@@ -19,12 +19,7 @@
)

from . import settings as app_settings
from .base.admin_actions import disable_action, enable_action
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OpenWISP Contributor's Board automation moved this from In progress to Done Jan 29, 2022
OpenWISP Contributor's Board automation moved this from Done to In progress Jan 29, 2022
@totallynotvaishnav
Copy link
Member Author

totallynotvaishnav commented Jan 29, 2022

I would suggest you to run tests locally too

@devkapilbansal All tests are successful locally. Don't know why it fails here.

@totallynotvaishnav totallynotvaishnav force-pushed the issues/336-remove-customizations-for-checks-and-replies branch 2 times, most recently from fb93c52 to 88fd655 Compare January 30, 2022 11:23
@devkapilbansal devkapilbansal force-pushed the issues/336-remove-customizations-for-checks-and-replies branch from 88fd655 to 1a3b352 Compare February 4, 2022 11:52
@devkapilbansal devkapilbansal moved this from In progress to Needs review in OpenWISP Contributor's Board Feb 4, 2022
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 4, 2022

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.01%) to 99.014% when pulling f4bb8ed on totallynotvaishnav:issues/336-remove-customizations-for-checks-and-replies into fd7c2e1 on openwisp:master.

Copy link
Member

@devkapilbansal devkapilbansal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@totallynotvaishnav tests pass successfully now. I rebased your branch and made minor improvements. Will check your changes soon

P.S. :- I saw some noisy output in tests here. Can you please open an issue for this ? Would be great if a PR is opened too.

@totallynotvaishnav
Copy link
Member Author

Can you please open an issue for this ? Would be great if a PR is opened too.

Sure, will do.

Copy link
Member

@devkapilbansal devkapilbansal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@totallynotvaishnav I can find some instances where is_active field is present. It is there in docs too. Please ensure that all necessary changes are done

OpenWISP Contributor's Board automation moved this from Needs review to In progress Feb 18, 2022
OpenWISP Priorities for next releases automation moved this from Ready for review/testing to In progress Feb 18, 2022
@totallynotvaishnav
Copy link
Member Author

I can find some instances where is_active field is present. It is there in docs too

@devkapilbansal I don't see any is_active field related to checks. Could you link to any reference?

@nemesifier nemesifier force-pushed the issues/336-remove-customizations-for-checks-and-replies branch from 9f4f03a to 6296a03 Compare April 8, 2022 22:19
Copy link
Member

@nemesifier nemesifier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks good, thank you @totallynotvaishnav @devkapilbansal 👍!
I have tested it a bit and will test more in the next days.

@nemesifier nemesifier force-pushed the issues/336-remove-customizations-for-checks-and-replies branch from 6296a03 to 27f12df Compare April 8, 2022 22:22
@nemesifier nemesifier force-pushed the issues/336-remove-customizations-for-checks-and-replies branch from 27f12df to f4bb8ed Compare April 8, 2022 22:32
@nemesifier nemesifier merged commit f4bb8ed into openwisp:master Apr 11, 2022
OpenWISP Contributor's Board automation moved this from In progress to Done Apr 11, 2022
OpenWISP Priorities for next releases automation moved this from In progress to Done Apr 11, 2022
@nemesifier
Copy link
Member

There were quite a few things remaining to be deleted, I took are of those in 56cf9f1.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[change!] Remove customization for checks and replies
4 participants