-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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
feat(replay): viewed_by_me search alias #70535
Conversation
and search_filter.key.name in VIEWED_BY_ME_KEY_ALIASES | ||
): | ||
# "viewed_by_me" is not a valid query field. | ||
# It's a convenience alias for users without the admin access to lookup ids. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
# It's a convenience alias for users without the admin access to lookup ids.
isn't this all users? should we just remove this comment as no sentry users have admin access?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, maybe
"It's a convenience alias for users, since only Sentry employees can lookup ids"
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why do we need to clarify this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(it seems to be a given)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Other ppl on our team weren't clear about this when we built it, which is why we exposed viewed_by_id
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
right, but the comment implies that us going and looking up ids is a normal use case, but it is not -- i think thats where my confusion lies
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, I see. I guess that can be misleading, I can remove it then
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #70535 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 63.16% 80.00% +16.83%
===========================================
Files 6501 6505 +4
Lines 290600 290418 -182
Branches 50105 50064 -41
===========================================
+ Hits 183554 232342 +48788
+ Misses 106606 57710 -48896
+ Partials 440 366 -74
|
🚨 Warning: This pull request contains Frontend and Backend changes! It's discouraged to make changes to Sentry's Frontend and Backend in a single pull request. The Frontend and Backend are not atomically deployed. If the changes are interdependent of each other, they must be separated into two pull requests and be made forward or backwards compatible, such that the Backend or Frontend can be safely deployed independently. Have questions? Please ask in the |
6655c40
to
7fecc9e
Compare
Follow up from #64924
On the backend, we query by viewed_by_id. Previously, we expose this in the search bar typeahead. But this doesn't really make sense since you need to be an admin to lookup user ids. So we'll use this for convenience - "have I seen/not seen this?"