Matt D'Angelo (1d203dfc) at 18 Mar 02:55

... and 1 more commit

Matt D'Angelo (2362a24f) at 18 Mar 02:54

What does this MR do and why?

Update Premium billing page to adapt trial flow changes

References

Screenshots or screen recordings

Before	After

How to set up and validate locally

• Setup gdk to simulate SaaS - https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/ee_features.html#simulate-a-saas-instance and restart GDK
• Sign in as root. Create new group.
• In admin section update plan to be premium.
• Visit /-/billings page.

MR acceptance checklist

Evaluate this MR against the MR acceptance checklist. It helps you analyze changes to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

Related to #587958

Hey @anastasia.khom 👋 the backend changes to support this made it into %18.11 and are deployed to production. You should be able to query those fields now as shown below:

I'll reassign this since I believe there's nothing else needed on the backend side, but feel free to reach out if you run into any issues

Closing this, as this change is deployed to production. Verified this by creating a new saved view and checking lastUpdatedBy was correctly tracked:

What does this MR do and why?

Update Premium billing page to adapt trial flow changes

References

Screenshots or screen recordings

Before	After

How to set up and validate locally

• Setup gdk to simulate SaaS - https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/ee_features.html#simulate-a-saas-instance and restart GDK
• Sign in as root. Create new group.
• In admin section update plan to be premium.
• Visit /-/billings page.

MR acceptance checklist

Evaluate this MR against the MR acceptance checklist. It helps you analyze changes to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

Related to #587958

Thanks @syarynovskyi - backend LGTM!

What does this MR do and why?

Remove work_item_planning_view flag guards from helper and model specs

Removes work_item_planning_view and work_items_consolidated_list_user feature flag references from unit-level model and helper specs as part of the cleanup epic. Both flags are at 100% rollout.

Changelog: added

References

Relates to #593689 gitlab-org#21372

Screenshots or screen recordings

How to set up and validate locally

MR acceptance checklist

Evaluate this MR against the MR acceptance checklist. It helps you analyze changes to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

Related to #593689

What does this MR do and why?

Remove work_item_planning_view flag guards from helper and model specs

Removes work_item_planning_view and work_items_consolidated_list_user feature flag references from unit-level model and helper specs as part of the cleanup epic. Both flags are at 100% rollout.

Changelog: added

References

Relates to #593689 gitlab-org#21372

Screenshots or screen recordings

How to set up and validate locally

MR acceptance checklist

Evaluate this MR against the MR acceptance checklist. It helps you analyze changes to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

Related to #593689

Thanks @vjain-gl, nice work breaking out the changes into smaller reviewable MRs 👍

@nicolasdular would you mind taking over the maintainer review here?

Thanks for raising @vjain-gl, I'm ok with that. I was assuming this comment was just a blanket statement we added wherever the flag was stubbed to ensure that when we did remove the FF, the corresponding specs still made sense (which I believe they do here). Perhaps @nicolasdular can clarify 😄

Nitpick:

      context 'when user can create work items in group' do

Hey @ck3g, @vjain-gl would you mind taking a look at the initial database / backend reviews respectively?

Matt D'Angelo (20900283) at 17 Mar 04:13

Updated

@GitLabDuo This is actually the recommended pattern from our BBM docs. See the "good" example here: https://docs.gitlab.com/development/database/batched_background_migrations. The sub_batch is framework-generated so there's no injection risk, and with the index + bounded sub-batch size the planner handles the IN just fine.

Matt D'Angelo (a11a25e1) at 17 Mar 03:59

Updated

@GitLabDuo only one of epic_id or issue_id could ever be set, since we have: CONSTRAINT check_76c1eb7122 CHECK ((num_nonnulls(epic_id, issue_id, merge_request_id) = 1))