fix clearsource_history command to avoid disassociation #397
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
added 5 commits
March 19, 2020 12:28
added 2 commits
March 19, 2020 17:24
…n/ckanext-harvest into fix_clearsource_history_command
|
We plan to open a new pull request based on this pull request to add an option to keep the latest related objects to a harvest source. This will probably be happen within the next three weeks. |
|
@mutantsan Thanks for your input on which we have created our PR #484 and finished the work. |
|
@seitenbau-govdata thanks, I appreciate it! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We encountered a huge problem with disassociation on a production serer a few days ago. This PR tries to fix it by adding an option to an existing clearsource_history command. The main idea is when we have the harvest_object associated with an existing package, we don't wanna loose it and so we don't wanna delete the harvest_job. I'm not entirely sure about this PR, so I'll appreciate any observation about this approach.