Skip to content

fix(aci): Rework logic to backfill open periods #92532

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

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

snigdhas
Copy link
Member

@snigdhas snigdhas commented May 30, 2025

This PR changes the backfill logic to make sure it works with the regressed/auto-resolved cycles that tripped us up earlier. There's also a handful of cases where we see successive regressions / resolutions and the old logic didn't know how to handle that. These changes will set the open period based on the first regression/first resolution if there are multiple in a row.

Makes for an easier review if you compare against the first commit which just copies the changes from migration 0878

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Scope: Backend Automatically applied to PRs that change backend components label May 30, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has a migration; here is the generated SQL for src/sentry/migrations/0915_backfill_open_periods.py

for 0915_backfill_open_periods in sentry

--
-- Raw Python operation
--
-- THIS OPERATION CANNOT BE WRITTEN AS SQL

@snigdhas snigdhas marked this pull request as ready for review May 30, 2025 16:04
@snigdhas snigdhas requested a review from a team as a code owner May 30, 2025 16:04
@snigdhas snigdhas requested a review from a team May 30, 2025 16:04
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 5, 2025

This PR has a migration; here is the generated SQL for src/sentry/migrations/0924_backfill_open_periods.py

for 0924_backfill_open_periods in sentry

--
-- Raw Python operation
--
-- THIS OPERATION CANNOT BE WRITTEN AS SQL

Copy link
Member

@wedamija wedamija left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The migration lgtm, and the logic changes seem to make sense, but I don't have too much context so it'd be good to have someone from your team confirm as well if they have more context

@snigdhas snigdhas requested a review from a team June 6, 2025 17:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Scope: Backend Automatically applied to PRs that change backend components
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants