I found myself wondering whether a PR I scheduled for automerge was
actually merged. It was, but I didn't receive a mail notification for it
- that makes sense considering I am the doer and usually don't want to
receive such notifications. But ideally I want to receive a notification
when a PR was merged because I scheduled it for automerge.
This PR implements exactly that.
The implementation works, but I wonder if there's a way to avoid passing
the "This PR was automerged" state down so much. I tried solving this
via the database (checking if there's an automerge scheduled for this PR
when sending the notification) but that did not work reliably, probably
because sending the notification happens async and the entry might have
already been deleted. My implementation might be the most
straightforward but maybe not the most elegant.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
A lot of our code is repeatedly testing if individual errors are
specific types of Not Exist errors. This is repetitative and unnecesary.
`Unwrap() error` provides a common way of labelling an error as a
NotExist error and we can/should use this.
This PR has chosen to use the common `io/fs` errors e.g.
`fs.ErrNotExist` for our errors. This is in some ways not completely
correct as these are not filesystem errors but it seems like a
reasonable thing to do and would allow us to simplify a lot of our code
to `errors.Is(err, fs.ErrNotExist)` instead of
`package.IsErr...NotExist(err)`
I am open to suggestions to use a different base error - perhaps
`models/db.ErrNotExist` if that would be felt to be better.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
When migrating add several more important sanity checks:
* SHAs must be SHAs
* Refs must be valid Refs
* URLs must be reasonable
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
In #21031 we have discovered that on very big tables postgres will use a
search involving the sort term in preference to the restrictive index.
Therefore we add another index for postgres and update the original migration.
Fix #21031
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
