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

refactor(payment_methods): Remove legacy locker code as it is not been used #1666

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 14, 2023

Conversation

ShankarSinghC
Copy link
Contributor

@ShankarSinghC ShankarSinghC commented Jul 10, 2023

Type of Change

  • Bugfix
  • New feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactoring
  • Dependency updates
  • Documentation
  • CI/CD

Description

Remove the legacy locker code from (crates/router/src/core/payment_methods/cards.rs) as we are no more using it. Also there are refactoring of certain functions as the locker_id was only used in case of legacy locker.

Additional Changes

  • This PR modifies the API contract
  • This PR modifies the database schema
  • This PR modifies application configuration/environment variables

Motivation and Context

How did you test it?

Screenshot 2023-07-13 at 4 15 42 PM

tested on custom pod
Screenshot 2023-07-13 at 4 42 50 PM

Checklist

  • I formatted the code cargo +nightly fmt --all
  • I addressed lints thrown by cargo clippy
  • I reviewed submitted code
  • I added unit tests for my changes where possible
  • I added a CHANGELOG entry if applicable

@ShankarSinghC ShankarSinghC added A-core Area: Core flows C-refactor Category: Refactor R-waiting-on-L1 Review: Waiting on L1 reviewer labels Jul 10, 2023
@ShankarSinghC ShankarSinghC requested a review from a team as a code owner July 10, 2023 07:08
@ShankarSinghC ShankarSinghC self-assigned this Jul 10, 2023
@ShankarSinghC ShankarSinghC requested a review from a team as a code owner July 10, 2023 07:08
Copy link
Member

@SanchithHegde SanchithHegde left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Other than that, looks good to me!

crates/router/src/configs/defaults.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@SanchithHegde SanchithHegde added the M-configuration-changes Metadata: This PR involves configuration changes label Jul 10, 2023
SanchithHegde
SanchithHegde previously approved these changes Jul 11, 2023
@Narayanbhat166
Copy link
Member

Why was locker_id used before? is it only for Legacy locker or is there some other significance of it? @jarnura

@ShankarSinghC
Copy link
Contributor Author

Why was locker_id used before? is it only for Legacy locker or is there some other significance of it? @jarnura

Currently it's just been used in the case of Legacy locker, in future it might be used for some other purpose also.

Narayanbhat166
Narayanbhat166 previously approved these changes Jul 11, 2023
vspecky
vspecky previously approved these changes Jul 11, 2023
inventvenkat
inventvenkat previously approved these changes Jul 12, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@inventvenkat inventvenkat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Merge it after testing in custom pod in Integ or Sandbox

@Narayanbhat166 Narayanbhat166 added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 14, 2023
@Narayanbhat166 Narayanbhat166 removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a manual request Jul 14, 2023
@Narayanbhat166 Narayanbhat166 added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 14, 2023
Merged via the queue into main with commit 8832dd6 Jul 14, 2023
@Narayanbhat166 Narayanbhat166 deleted the locker_refactor branch July 14, 2023 10:27
@SanchithHegde SanchithHegde removed the R-waiting-on-L1 Review: Waiting on L1 reviewer label Jul 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-core Area: Core flows C-refactor Category: Refactor M-configuration-changes Metadata: This PR involves configuration changes
Projects
No open projects
Status: Merged
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants