Magma project name fixes - #1516
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR relaxes the validation on the "project" record identifier, which previously could be updated, but updates required correctly referencing the current project record. In addition this may disagree with the value in the Gnomon token; there is also the Janus "full name" which may disagree.
Here we allow the update to come from: the current record name, the PROJECT token in Gnomon, the slug, the slug upper-cased, and the PROJ token in Gnomon. However, Magma will continue to ensure the project name remains the same unless it is updated.
When the token PROJECT is set in Gnomon, now it will automatically update the project record in Magma. Note that you can still set the project record via /update to whatever you want, meaning divergence from Gnomon is still possible, though less likely.