Skip to content

Conversation

@natran17
Copy link

@natran17 natran17 commented Nov 16, 2025

The column references websocSectionMeeting.id (a meeting ID), but was incorrectly named section_id.

Related Issue

#249

Motivation and Context

The previous naming was confusing and misleading for readers. Now it is more intuitive.

How Has This Been Tested?

Only column name was changed. It had no effect on the code, so the code runs fine just like before.

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

  • My code involves a change to the database schema.
  • My code requires a change to the documentation.

@laggycomputer laggycomputer self-requested a review November 16, 2025 01:24
@laggycomputer laggycomputer linked an issue Nov 16, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link
Member

@laggycomputer laggycomputer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the PR.

  • This does not require a documentation change, since it changes an internal implementation detail.
  • Currently, this PR does nothing because there is no migration. More information here. You need to take further steps in order for this PR to be ready to merge.

@laggycomputer laggycomputer marked this pull request as draft November 18, 2025 01:31
@natran17
Copy link
Author

Sorry about the incomplete PR. Can you please check this new one. Thanks!

@natran17 natran17 marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2025 19:50
@laggycomputer
Copy link
Member

laggycomputer commented Dec 2, 2025

Was looking through the PR backlog and found this. In the future, if a reviewer requests changes on your PR, and you address these changes, you should then re-request a review (with the re-request review flow in GitHub) as a courtesy, otherwise they may not be aware of your work. Any outstanding requested changes will prevent the PR from being merged. This includes requests for changes that have been resolved but have not been reviewed and approved.

I'll review this now since I'm here.

Copy link
Member

@laggycomputer laggycomputer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the patch. The idea looks good, but you'll have to regenerate the migration file because a migration sharing ID 19 has been merged into the codebase since this PR was opened. Migrations are sequential so this ID overlap must be resolved.

Fixing this is a little troublesome:

  • Rectify your branch so that the db folder exactly matches what's currently on our main branch, with no added or deleted files.
  • Make the change to the column name again and generate a new migration. Make sure you name the migration per my comments.
  • Commit the result.

This is a somewhat annoying artefact of the way Drizzle works. I'm happy to guide you through this (contact me/us on Discord) if you need help, because I see this as an undue burden on first-time contributors.

@natran17
Copy link
Author

natran17 commented Dec 3, 2025

Sorry for not notifying your about the updated PR. I'm glad you were able to find it and thank you for all the helpful comments. I created a new migrate ID. Let me know if everything looks good. Thank you!

Copy link
Member

@laggycomputer laggycomputer 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 stuff looks fine now. Looks like some other artefacts got mixed in. Clear those out and we should be good.

@natran17
Copy link
Author

natran17 commented Dec 4, 2025

Thanks for pointing those out. I've corrected them now.

Copy link
Member

@laggycomputer laggycomputer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Alright, this is good now. Thanks for the patch!

Copy link
Collaborator

@sanskarm7 sanskarm7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hey nathan,

thanks for your hard work over these last few weeks! just tested the changes and all looks good. well done!

last thing, and it's such a minor nitpick i almost didn't see it - could you please rerun the migration with the name rename_section_id_to_meeting_id rather than rename-section-id-to-meeting-id ?

it would just make it more consistent with the other migrations haha.

thanks again for your work! looking forward to getting this merged!

Copy link
Member

@laggycomputer laggycomputer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seconding the above, also please follow the Conventional Commits spec in the PR title since this will become the commit message.

@natran17
Copy link
Author

natran17 commented Dec 7, 2025

Thanks for all the thorough reviews and the patience. Appreciate your help.

@natran17 natran17 changed the title changed column name to meeting_id to better describe what it holds fix: section_id column to meeting_id for clarity Dec 7, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@sanskarm7 sanskarm7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yahooo lgtm!!

good work nathan!

@sanskarm7 sanskarm7 merged commit 2482f82 into icssc:main Dec 7, 2025
1 check failed
sanskarm7 added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 7, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[websoc] SQL junction table column name isn't right

3 participants