feat: add instance settings to schema #2425
Conversation
Sboonny
force-pushed
the
feat/add-dashboard-to-change-chapter-setting
branch
from
c3c009e
to
d510d04
Compare
Co-authored-by: gikf <60067306+gikf@users.noreply.github.com>
Sboonny
force-pushed
the
feat/add-dashboard-to-change-chapter-setting
branch
from
d510d04
to
00d6277
Compare
Co-authored-by: gikf <60067306+gikf@users.noreply.github.com>
Sboonny
changed the title
Sboonny
force-pushed
the
feat/add-dashboard-to-change-chapter-setting
branch
from
09fea3e
to
1edbfe4
Compare
gikf
changed the title
gikf
changed the title
Co-authored-by: Krzysztof G. <60067306+gikf@users.noreply.github.com>
server/prisma/migrations/20230324125932_create_instance_settings/migration.sql
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Oliver Eyton-Williams <ojeytonwilliams@gmail.com>
|
Sorry, @Sboonny, I didn't see @gikf's comment (and your conversation) when I made my suggestion. While there are some things we can do to ensure that the table has one record, I would just go with @gikf's approach, but with a comment on the migration to explain why we're not generating ids automatically. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for adding the comment @Sboonny, it helped me understand the requirements. Ironically, that means we don't need it!
server/prisma/migrations/20230324125932_create_instance_settings/migration.sql
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Oliver Eyton-Williams <ojeytonwilliams@gmail.com>
|
Sorry for the delay on this one, but I think it's a bad idea to update the database without including the code that makes use of those updates. Reason being I can't follow the logic about how this is used. Also, more generally each PR should "do one thing", but this PR "does half a thing". I hope that makes sense! Could you combine this PR with #2467 ? |
Update README.md).mainbranch of Chapter.Closes #2408