Skip to content

Conversation

@stalgiag
Copy link
Contributor

Overview

Moved the "automation support" status for an At Version to the DB. This allows VoiceOver Bot to update the latest supported at version

  • Added supportedByAutomation and latestAutomationSupporting boolean columns to AtVersion table
  • Backfilled supported versions for VoiceOver, NVDA, and JAWS based on current automation capabilities
  • New promoteAutomationSupportedVersion() function to mark a version as latest supported and demote other versions
  • VoiceOver jobs automatically promote the new AtVersion when returning a new version from the collection job
  • Updated version queries to filter by supportedByAutomation flag instead of hardcoded constants
  • Simplified version selection logic to query database directly
  • Added tests for new services
  • Updated documentation for adding a new at version

}
"""
Records information about the review of a TestPlanReport by a vendor representative.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I accidentally deleted these quotes then thought it was easier to see in my IDE with the descriptor in place

@stalgiag stalgiag changed the title feat: pinned automation version feat: persist at version automation support in DB Oct 16, 2025
@stalgiag stalgiag requested review from ChrisC and gnarf October 22, 2025 17:38
@ChrisC ChrisC requested a review from howard-e October 22, 2025 22:11
@ChrisC
Copy link
Contributor

ChrisC commented Oct 22, 2025

@stalgiag I added @howard-e as a reviewer but am curious about what would be the best way to test this manually with a recent data dump from prod? My db dump has some 15.0 automated reruns in the "Automated updates" queue... would I need to ping GH actions and run a job to "promote" a higher version as the latest (e.g. 15.6.1)?

@stalgiag
Copy link
Contributor Author

stalgiag commented Oct 22, 2025

That would be the way to test it properly. Most of the time, for quicker testing loops, I was just modifying this line temporarily on my local to force the version name returned from the job to a higher number to simulate running the job on a newer version.

@ChrisC ChrisC removed their request for review October 30, 2025 20:49
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.

3 participants