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

Reconcile itemrequests and requestitems #5083

Open
3 tasks
cielf opened this issue Mar 9, 2025 · 0 comments
Open
3 tasks

Reconcile itemrequests and requestitems #5083

cielf opened this issue Mar 9, 2025 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@cielf
Copy link
Collaborator

cielf commented Mar 9, 2025

Summary

ItemRequests and RequestItems seem to have largely the same information We should just use one of them

Why?

This is cleanup -- I'm pretty sure it's a legacy of when we had two apps

Details

It looks like the way to go with this will be to rework the distribution printout to use ItemRequest instead of RequestItem -- then we should be able to get rid of RequestItem

Job for the core team

-- confirm that ItemRequest and RequestItem are in agreement in the prod data. If not - how long ago is the discrepency?

Context from the RubyForGood 2024 event

Migration on branch from event to attempt to synchronize these in prod data: https://github.com/rubyforgood/human-essentials/blob/kp/merge-line-items-at-request-save__data-migration/db/migrate/20240601155348_dedup_item_requests_in_requests.rb

(the event was 24 weekend if you want to see the conversation (that's the weekend before memorial day weekend for the US folk…e.g., see comments in human-essentials channel leading up to this one: https://rubyforgood.slack.com/archives/C6WLZL0DD/p1717184706390639)

Criteria for completion

  • confirm that the info is in agreement between item requests and requestitems
  • rework code using RequestItem to use ItemRequest. Thorough testing.
  • migration to remove RequestItem
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants