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

Fix check for restricted attachments #4536

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ttys0dev
Copy link
Contributor

@ttys0dev ttys0dev commented Oct 5, 2024

Looks like this was broken in #4352.

@ttys0dev ttys0dev force-pushed the fix-restricted-attachments branch 11 times, most recently from 836add1 to 446b019 Compare October 8, 2024 17:23
@albertisfu albertisfu self-requested a review October 10, 2024 00:41
Copy link
Contributor

@albertisfu albertisfu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @ttys0dev I left one comment in code. Beside that I just want to confirm that with this tweak restricted attachments will be omitted during merging.

Before the tweak:
Screenshot 2024-10-09 at 6 39 33 p m

After:
Screenshot 2024-10-09 at 6 40 33 p m

On PACER, these attachments are shown even though they're sealed.

Screenshot 2024-10-09 at 6 44 56 p m

So I was wondering if this behavior is correct, @mlissner?

cl/recap/mergers.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@mlissner
Copy link
Member

Yeah, I don't think that's right. I think if it's sealed, we still want to get the metadata for the case, including the short_description that says, *Restricted*. If we want to get really elegant, we have an issue somewhere to detect sealed stuff and actually flip the sealed boolean in the DB to True, but it hasn't gotten prioritized yet.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: 🏗 In progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants