fix(database): revert breaking field removal part of #1835 #1845
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
…ib#1835 Signed-off-by: Charel Baum (external expert on behalf of DB Netz AG) <charel.baum-extern@deutschebahn.com>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description of your changes
This PR intends to revert the breaking part of the merged PR #1835.
cloudwatchLogsExportConfigurationfield and mark it as deprecated in the descriptioncloudwatchLogsExportConfigurationtoenabledCloudwatchLogsExportsinLateInitialize()cloudwatchLogsExportConfigurationinIsUpToDate()This way there can be a deprecation period for
cloudwatchLogsExportConfiguration, where the field can still be used, butenabledCloudwatchLogsExportshas priority if both are used.possible deprecation note for users:
cloudwatchLogsExportConfigurationis deprecated and will be remove in a future release.enableCloudwatchLogsExportsshould be used insteadI have:
make reviewable testto ensure this PR is ready for review.How has this code been tested
manually