Implement a check for whether we posted MassPay #4256
Conversation
chadwhitacre
changed the title
|
Build is failing on #4236. |
chadwhitacre
changed the base branch from
master
to
fix-iter-payday-events-test
|
Base changed to #4236, builds restarted. |
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
fix-iter-payday-events-test
branch
from
cfa0d32 to
e5431c3
Compare
|
#4236 is merged, should base be changed back to master? |
chadwhitacre
changed the base branch from
fix-iter-payday-events-test
to
master
|
Yup! Done and rebased. Previous was 20156d0. |
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
check-for-posted-masspay
branch
from
20156d0 to
d7425a7
Compare
|
This looks okay to me as far as I can follow it. @nobodxbodon? |
|
Rebased again. |
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
check-for-posted-masspay
branch
from
d7425a7 to
80578b8
Compare
| JOIN exchange_routes er | ||
| ON e.route = er.id | ||
| WHERE er.network = 'paypal' | ||
| AND e.amount < 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The semantics of the exchanges.amount field are somewhat goofy (especially as it interacts with the fee field; see #2442), but fundamentally a negative amount indicates a payout, whereas a positive amount indicates a payin.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for explaining. Shall we document this in schema.sql (not necessary in this PR)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe on http://gratipay.readthedocs.io/?
bin/masspay.py
Outdated
| @@ -193,6 +193,11 @@ def post_back_to_gratipay(): | |||
| except KeyError: | |||
| gratipay_base_url = 'https://gratipay.com' | |||
|
|
|||
| nmasspays = int(requests.get(gratipay_base_url + '/dashboard/nmasspays').text()) | |||
| if nmasspays < 10: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so this assumes there should be more than 10 teams to pay to? any way to override this without changing code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why would we want to override it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In case that there was no more than 10 teams to pay out to. Or is that impossible?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm ... theoretically, I suppose. We haven't been below 10 in a long time that I can recall (famous last words). This is the test I came up with to decide whether masspay had been run the previous week or not. I would say in the case where it was run but there were less than 10 payouts, the person running payday could adapt to the situation by manually modifying the script before rerunning. That should be a rare occurrence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. Would it be helpful to add some instructions in the print out below, like "if this is a false alarm, please modify xxx manually and rerun"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about 2de1d66?
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
check-for-posted-masspay
branch
from
2de1d66 to
45c791f
Compare
|
Rebased, was 2de1d66. |
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
check-for-posted-masspay
branch
from
45c791f to
e5fd92b
Compare
|
Rebased, was 45c791f. Ready to merge! |
Hopefully will prevent recurrences of gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#951 (comment).