Wrap oauth2 migrations inside conditions #31737
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Contributor
Author
|
/backport to stable23 |
artonge
requested review from
a team,
juliusknorr,
nickvergessen and
skjnldsv
and removed request for
a team
nickvergessen
approved these changes
Mar 28, 2022
Merged
blizzz
approved these changes
Mar 31, 2022
Signed-off-by: Louis Chemineau <[email protected]>
artonge
force-pushed
the
fix/oc_oauth2_migration
branch
from
e1d8eef to
b0b8805
Compare
blizzz
approved these changes
Mar 31, 2022
blizzz
added
4. to release
nickvergessen
approved these changes
Mar 31, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The migration is run during usual upgrades, so we need to wrap every step insides conditions to make sure we do not break anything.
Currently, it leads to the following error: "The column 'hashed_code' on table 'oc_oauth2_access_tokens' already exists"
Is this the correct way?
Introduced by #30276