Skip to content

Feat/cronjob archive inactive devices#807

Open
jona159 wants to merge 12 commits intodevfrom
feat/cronjob-archive-inactive-devices
Open

Feat/cronjob archive inactive devices#807
jona159 wants to merge 12 commits intodevfrom
feat/cronjob-archive-inactive-devices

Conversation

@jona159
Copy link
Contributor

@jona159 jona159 commented Mar 10, 2026

Type of Change

  • add archived_at field on device schema

  • create stored procedure to archive inactive devices

  • add cronjob to run stored procedure periodically

  • grey out archived devices in device-datatable and disable most functions

  • Dependency upgrade

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change)

  • Breaking change

    • e.g. a fixed bug or new feature that may break something else
  • New feature

  • Code quality improvements

    • e.g. refactoring, documentation, tests, tooling, ...

Implementation

Checklist

  • I gave this pull request a meaningful title
  • My pull request is targeting the dev branch
  • I have added documentation to my code
  • I have deleted code that I have commented out

Additional Information

  • This PR closes #

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 10, 2026

Coverage Report

Status Category Percentage Covered / Total
🔵 Lines 71.42% 1665 / 2331
🔵 Statements 69.76% 1742 / 2497
🔵 Functions 72.68% 338 / 465
🔵 Branches 58.58% 921 / 1572
File Coverage
File Stmts Branches Functions Lines Uncovered Lines
Changed Files
app/models/device.server.ts 67.16% 69.72% 65.62% 67.16% 177-180, 275, 303-312, 340, 345, 353-355, 361-363, 379-381, 385-387, 438-544, 595-599, 627-633, 638-654, 733-735, 746, 753-754, 762, 789, 890-910, 929
app/schema/device.ts 80% 100% 66.66% 77.77% 64-70
Generated in workflow #2209 for commit 30566ed by the Vitest Coverage Report Action

@jona159 jona159 marked this pull request as draft March 10, 2026 13:26
@jona159 jona159 linked an issue Mar 10, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
@jona159 jona159 marked this pull request as ready for review March 13, 2026 12:38
Copy link
Member

@scheidtdav scheidtdav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me!
Only thing that might be missing is disabling features via the api. I think we decided to make archived devices truely read-only. So I think we should prevent people from modifying stuff or sending data, no?

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.

ongoing process: archival of stale devices

2 participants