Skip to content
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

DESK_REJECT added #1285

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

DESK_REJECT added #1285

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

umair-nasir14
Copy link
Collaborator

A DESK_REJECT status added, primarily for Journal events. To facilitate emails for this status, two new email templates added for journal desk reject and reject. A reason is also propagated to the email for desk_reject and reject, which is propogated through outcome services, therefore a new reason column is added in the outcome table. Finally, all migrations are performed.

Please let me know if there are any changes needed!

@umair-nasir14 umair-nasir14 changed the title DEST_REJECT added DESK_REJECT added Sep 22, 2024
event=event,
user=user,
)
print("event_type::::::::", event.event_type)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"print" shouldn't be in the production codebase?

user=user,
)
print("event_type::::::::", event.event_type)
print("Type of event.event_type:::::::", type(event.event_type))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"print" shouldn't be in the production codebase?

(please see comments above)

event=event,
user=user,
)
print("event_type::::::::", event.event_type)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"print" shouldn't be in the production codebase?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @upaq. Thanks for noticing these! Yes, it should not be in the production. I will remove it now.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cleaned up. I think there is no other print statement that would go in prod.

@umair-nasir14 umair-nasir14 requested a review from upaq October 22, 2024 11:43
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.

2 participants