feat(uptime): backfill 2xx status code assertions on all uptime subscriptions#108678
Merged
evanpurkhiser merged 1 commit intomasterfrom Mar 16, 2026
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
Scope: Backend
Contributor
|
This PR has a migration; here is the generated SQL for for --
-- Raw Python operation
--
-- THIS OPERATION CANNOT BE WRITTEN AS SQL |
wedamija
reviewed
Feb 20, 2026
Member
wedamija
left a comment
wedamija
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is adding this check to all uptime checks going to make these more expensive to run at all?
Comment on lines
+40
to
+45
| if not assertion or not assertion.get("root"): | ||
| return {"root": {"op": "and", "children": copy.deepcopy(DEFAULT_STATUS_CODE_CHECKS)}}, True | ||
|
|
||
| root = assertion["root"] | ||
| if _has_any_status_code_check(root): | ||
| return assertion, False |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wondering if we should just check for no assertion here, rather than editing existing assertions? Are customers using these at all right now? It might be easier to just handle the simple case
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let me double check.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK so
-- How many have custom assertions beyond just status_code_check
SELECT COUNT(*) AS has_custom_assertions
FROM uptime_uptimesubscription
WHERE assertion IS NOT NULL
AND EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM jsonb_array_elements(assertion->'root'->'children') AS child
WHERE child->>'op' != 'status_code_check'
);There's only 22 where the customer has changed the assertions from starting with the status code assertion.
If we don't make the edits we might end up losing the assertion checks and confusing customers when we allow 500s without assertions.
evanpurkhiser
force-pushed
the
evanpurkhiser/feat-uptime-backfill-2xx-status-code-assertions-on-all-uptime-subscriptions
branch
from
46d929f to
35ab3a3
Compare
Contributor
Backend Test FailuresFailures on
|
…riptions Fixes NEW-761
evanpurkhiser
force-pushed
the
evanpurkhiser/feat-uptime-backfill-2xx-status-code-assertions-on-all-uptime-subscriptions
branch
from
35ab3a3 to
963458c
Compare
wedamija
approved these changes
Mar 16, 2026
evanpurkhiser
deleted the
evanpurkhiser/feat-uptime-backfill-2xx-status-code-assertions-on-all-uptime-subscriptions
branch
JonasBa
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 16, 2026
…riptions (#108678) Fixes NEW-761
3 tasks
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Fixes NEW-761