Lpd 41036 DRAFT #194
Draft
Lpd 41036 DRAFT #194
Conversation
This file contains 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
…hod to service layer
… resizing on tablet viewport'
DisplayPageTemplatesForWebContentArticle#ViewPaginationContentViaAP
|
To conserve resources, the PR Tester does not automatically run for every pull. If your code changes were already tested in another pull, reference that pull in this pull so the test results can be analyzed. If your pull was never tested, comment "ci:test" to run the PR Tester for this pull. |
brianikim
reviewed
Nov 13, 2024
...feray/users/admin/internal/exportimport/data/handler/OrganizationStagedModelDataHandler.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hey @brianikim ,
Here's the draft you requested minus the test commits that I'm still working on. The fix itself is pretty simple in that we preferably want to check against the portletDataContext's companyID. The parts with the primaryKeys earlier is just to simplify later checks but can most likely be omitted.
There's a second commit here unrelated to the core fix that I just added today because when doing a once over I noticed it and it looked wrong to me? I'm not sure if I'm missing context on this, but I don't see why we'd be checking against the groupID here. Please let me know if I should separate this out or ignore it though.
Thanks!