Skip to content

chore(gadm): comment gadm 4.1 logic inside getAreas #4958

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2025

Conversation

willian-viana
Copy link
Collaborator

Overview

Since we're still on 3.6 in production. We need to remove the second 4.1 request to the RW Areas MS.

#4957

@willian-viana willian-viana requested a review from gtempus March 7, 2025 17:25
@willian-viana willian-viana self-assigned this Mar 7, 2025
@willian-viana willian-viana marked this pull request as ready for review March 7, 2025 17:25
@willian-viana willian-viana temporarily deployed to gfw-staging-pr-4958 March 7, 2025 17:29 Inactive
Copy link

@gtempus gtempus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I really like how you handled this, @willian-viana. 💪
Going to production with the code like this will let us exercise a lot of your original implementation without the 4.1 side effect.

We can't have Flagship make 4.1 area queries because there are actually 4.1 areas in the Areas microservice. So, if Flagship starts asking for them in the areas service but isn't prepared to use 4.1 logic in other places consistently, it will cause confusion.

We should introduce the 4.1 area request in a GADM 4.1 feature branch. Just not into main right now.

@willian-viana willian-viana merged commit ecd9367 into develop Mar 7, 2025
4 checks passed
@willian-viana willian-viana deleted the chore/gadm-get-areas branch March 7, 2025 18:29
@willian-viana willian-viana mentioned this pull request Mar 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.

None yet

2 participants