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

test: Scenario that replicates the crash in production #19071

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hariombalhara
Copy link
Member

What does this PR do?

  • Fixes #XXXX (GitHub issue number)
  • Fixes CAL-XXXX (Linear issue number - should be visible at the bottom of the GitHub issue description)

Mandatory Tasks (DO NOT REMOVE)

  • I have self-reviewed the code (A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected).
  • I have updated the developer docs in /docs if this PR makes changes that would require a documentation change. If N/A, write N/A here and check the checkbox.
  • I confirm automated tests are in place that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.

How should this be tested?

  • Are there environment variables that should be set?
  • What are the minimal test data to have?
  • What is expected (happy path) to have (input and output)?
  • Any other important info that could help to test that PR

Checklist

  • I haven't read the contributing guide
  • My code doesn't follow the style guidelines of this project
  • I haven't commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I haven't checked if my changes generate no new warnings

Copy link

vercel bot commented Feb 4, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
cal-com-ui-playground ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Feb 4, 2025 11:30am
2 Skipped Deployments
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
cal ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Feb 4, 2025 11:30am
calcom-web-canary ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Feb 4, 2025 11:30am

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Feb 4, 2025

CLA assistant check
Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
1 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.

✅ emrysal
❌ Hariom Balhara


Hariom Balhara seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account.
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Feb 4, 2025

Hey there and thank you for opening this pull request! 👋🏼

We require pull request titles to follow the Conventional Commits specification and it looks like your proposed title needs to be adjusted.

Details:

No release type found in pull request title "Not to be merged - Scenario that replicates the crash in production". Add a prefix to indicate what kind of release this pull request corresponds to. For reference, see https://www.conventionalcommits.org/

Available types:
 - feat: A new feature
 - fix: A bug fix
 - docs: Documentation only changes
 - style: Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code (white-space, formatting, missing semi-colons, etc)
 - refactor: A code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
 - perf: A code change that improves performance
 - test: Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests
 - build: Changes that affect the build system or external dependencies (example scopes: gulp, broccoli, npm)
 - ci: Changes to our CI configuration files and scripts (example scopes: Travis, Circle, BrowserStack, SauceLabs)
 - chore: Other changes that don't modify src or test files
 - revert: Reverts a previous commit

@hariombalhara hariombalhara changed the title Add a case that crashes Not to be merged - Scenario that replicates the crash in production Feb 4, 2025
@keithwillcode keithwillcode added core area: core, team members only enterprise area: enterprise, audit log, organisation, SAML, SSO labels Feb 4, 2025
@@ -409,7 +409,14 @@ async function _getAvailableSlots({ input, ctx }: GetScheduleOptions): Promise<I
minimumBookingNotice: eventType.minimumBookingNotice,
frequency: eventType.slotInterval || input.duration || eventType.length,
organizerTimeZone: eventTimeZone,
datesOutOfOffice: !isTeamEvent ? allUsersAvailability[0]?.datesOutOfOffice : undefined,
datesOutOfOffice: {
"2020-06-01": {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a an old date before current time causing the error.

@emrysal emrysal changed the title Not to be merged - Scenario that replicates the crash in production test: Scenario that replicates the crash in production Feb 4, 2025
@emrysal
Copy link
Contributor

emrysal commented Feb 4, 2025

Hi @hariombalhara I'd love to merge this test if it passes when the cause of crash is reverted. So we cover this scenario the next time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
core area: core, team members only enterprise area: enterprise, audit log, organisation, SAML, SSO
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants