[Feature flag] Remove limit_epic_groups_query [RUN ALL RSPEC] [RUN AS-IF-FOSS]
What does this MR do?
Removes limit_epic_groups_query flag which has been enabled on .com by default since May 7th (roll out issue - #327624 (closed))
Screenshots (strongly suggested)
Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
Conformity
-
I have included a changelog entry, or it's not needed. (Does this MR need a changelog?) - [-] I have added/updated documentation, or it's not needed. (Is documentation required?)
-
I have properly separated EE content from FOSS, or this MR is FOSS only. (Where should EE code go?) - [-] I have added information for database reviewers in the MR description, or it's not needed. (Does this MR have database related changes?)
-
I have self-reviewed this MR per code review guidelines. -
This MR does not harm performance, or I have asked a reviewer to help assess the performance impact. (Merge request performance guidelines) -
I have followed the style guides.
Availability and Testing
- [-] I have added/updated tests following the Testing Guide, or it's not needed. (Consider all test levels. See the Test Planning Process.)
- [-] I have tested this MR in all supported browsers, or it's not needed.
- [-] I have informed the Infrastructure department of a default or new setting change per definition of done, or it's not needed.
Security
Does this MR contain changes to processing or storing of credentials or tokens, authorization and authentication methods or other items described in the security review guidelines? If not, then delete this Security section.
- [-] Label as security and @ mention
@gitlab-com/gl-security/appsec
- [-] The MR includes necessary changes to maintain consistency between UI, API, email, or other methods
- [-] Security reports checked/validated by a reviewer from the AppSec team
Related to #330514 (closed)
Merge request reports
Activity
changed milestone to %13.12
added feature flag maintenancerefactor labels
marked the checklist item I have included a changelog entry, or it's not needed. (Does this MR need a changelog?) as completed
marked the checklist item I have properly separated EE content from FOSS, or this MR is FOSS only. (Where should EE code go?) as completed
marked the checklist item I have self-reviewed this MR per code review guidelines. as completed
marked the checklist item This MR does not harm performance, or I have asked a reviewer to help assess the performance impact. (Merge request performance guidelines) as completed
marked the checklist item I have followed the style guides. as completed
added databasereview pending label
1 Warning Please add a merge request type to this merge request. 3 Messages We are in the process of rolling out a new workflow for adding changelog entries. This new workflow uses Git commit subjects and Git trailers to generate changelogs. This new approach will soon replace the current YAML based approach. To ease the transition process, we recommend you start using both the old and new approach in parallel. This is not required at this time, but will make it easier to transition to the new approach in the future. To do so, pick the commit that should go in the changelog and add a
Changelog
trailer to it. For example:This is my commit's subject line This is the optional commit body. Changelog: added
The value of the
Changelog
trailer should be one of the following: added, fixed, changed, deprecated, removed, security, performance, other.For more information, take a look at the following resources:
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/delivery/-/issues/1564
- https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/api/repositories.html#generate-changelog-data
If you'd like to see the new approach in action, take a look at the commits in the Omnibus repository.
This merge request adds or changes files that require a review from the Database team. You're adding or removing a feature flag, your MR title needs to include [RUN ALL RSPEC] [RUN AS-IF-FOSS]
(we may have updated it automatically for you and started a new MR pipeline) to ensure everything is covered.This merge request requires a database review. To make sure these changes are reviewed, take the following steps:
- Ensure the merge request has database and databasereview pending labels. If the merge request modifies database files, Danger will do this for you.
- Prepare your MR for database review according to the docs.
- Assign and mention the database reviewer suggested by Reviewer Roulette.
The following files require a review from the Database team:
ee/app/finders/epics_finder.rb
Reviewer roulette
Changes that require review have been detected! A merge request is normally reviewed by both a reviewer and a maintainer in its primary category (e.g. frontend or backend), and by a maintainer in all other categories.
To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.
To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.
Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.
Category Reviewer Maintainer backend Reuben Pereira ( @rpereira2
) (UTC+5.5, 3.5 hours ahead of@jprovaznik
)Dmitry Gruzd ( @dgruzd
) (UTC+3, 1 hour ahead of@jprovaznik
)database Michał Zając ( @Quintasan
) (UTC+2, same timezone as@jprovaznik
)Steve Abrams ( @sabrams
) (UTC-6, 8 hours behind@jprovaznik
)If needed, you can retry the
danger-review
job that generated this comment.Generated by
DangerEdited by 🤖 GitLab Bot 🤖Setting label groupproduct planning based on
@jprovaznik
's group.added groupproduct planning label
Setting label(s) devopsplan sectiondev based on groupproduct planning.
added devopsplan sectiondev labels
added bugperformance label
- Resolved by Mayra Cabrera
@egrieff could you please review?
requested review from @egrieff
removed databasereview pending label
- Resolved by Mayra Cabrera
Jan Provaznik (Busy) @jprovaznik removed database review pending label just now
I believe DB review is not needed in this case (DB review of this change was than as part of the MR which introduced the optimization behind the flag).
removed review request for @egrieff
requested review from @mayra-cabrera
enabled an automatic merge when the pipeline for 26734e07 succeeds
@jprovaznik Thanks! This LGTM, MWPS set
added databasereview pending label
mentioned in commit 529becdf
added workflowstaging label
added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging label
added workflowproduction label and removed workflowcanary label
added releasedcandidate label
added releasedpublished label and removed releasedcandidate label
added epics label
added pipeline:run-all-rspec pipeline:run-as-if-foss labels
added Category:Portfolio Management label