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

WPB-4559 user receives 2 k federation connection removed on anta #3580

Conversation

battermann
Copy link
Contributor

@battermann battermann commented Sep 13, 2023

https://wearezeta.atlassian.net/browse/WPB-4559

Checklist

  • Add a new entry in an appropriate subdirectory of changelog.d
  • Read and follow the PR guidelines

@zebot zebot added the ok-to-test Approved for running tests in CI, overrides not-ok-to-test if both labels exist label Sep 13, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@fisx fisx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks very reasonable, unfortunately it is about to be deprecated by the more robust #3582.

This PR is probably good for code mining when we have a new architecture and implement this again, Galley.API.BackgroundProcesses in particular looks useful.

-- You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License along
-- with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

module Galley.API.BackgroundProcesses where
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
module Galley.API.BackgroundProcesses where
module Galley.BackgroundProcesses where

not part of the rest api, right?

Comment on lines +46 to +47
-- | Remove all conversations and members from the local domain. This must only be run in a background process
unsafeRemoveRemoteMembersFromLocalConversation ::
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why is it unsafe? because it's not fit for HTTP? then i'd call it bg instead.

@battermann
Copy link
Contributor Author

obsolote because of #3582
let's keep the branch though

@battermann battermann closed this Sep 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ok-to-test Approved for running tests in CI, overrides not-ok-to-test if both labels exist
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants