CTM-332: handle mixed-but-not-correctable attribute statuses#3553
Merged
CTM-332: handle mixed-but-not-correctable attribute statuses#3553
Conversation
davidangb
requested review from
calypsomatic,
rjohanek and
snf2ye
and removed request for
a team and
rjohanek
calypsomatic
approved these changes
Feb 9, 2026
snf2ye
approved these changes
Feb 9, 2026
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
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Ticket: CTM-332
For Quicksilver corrections, add a new
MixedButNotCorrectableentity status to differentiate fromMixed.Reorderedand thus should be processed as a correctionThis resolves an issue introduced in #3552, in which the monitor processes an entity of type 'Mixed
, finds no correctable attributes in it, and moves on ... but in its next loop it finds the same entity again. Now, it will mark that entity asMixedButNotCorrectable` so it won't keep re-processing it.My comment in #3552 of "I've also removed ATTRIBUTE_CORRECTIONS ... we never actually needed that;" was a lie. We did need it; it prevented this loop. But I think this PR is a cleaner and more performant way to handle it.