Check if we can avoid storing objects in the intid utility
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 3
- Forks
- 0
- Avg merge
- 2d 2h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
I suspect we are now storing the object in the utility and that this:
- is not needed
- is a potential source of troubles (e.g., in migrations because of classes that might be missing).
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating the intid utility implementation and tracing where it stores and retrieves objects. Check whether object storage is required by current behavior, then consider migration cases where stored classes are unavailable. Done means the utility no longer stores unnecessary objects without breaking its existing integrations or migrations.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100