Alter time_elapsed field in BuildHistory Model

[arjunsalyan]

Closes: #124

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #126 into master will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #126      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.76%   73.84%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          45       46       +1     
  Lines        1334     1338       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits          984      988       +4     
  Misses        350      350

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ions/0009_alter_field_time_elapsed_buildhistory.py	100% <100%> (ø)
app/ports/models/buildhistory.py	20.61% <100%> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c37e5cf...b5dc20b. Read the comment docs.

[umeshksingla]

If we are not doing any calculations over it and the format is not understood by the app/python directly, I'd say we should keep it simply as a string?

[arjunsalyan]

If we are not doing any calculations over it and the format is not understood by the app/python directly, I'd say we should keep it simply as a string?

It stores a timedelta object which does not support custom formatting. So DurationField seems just the right choice for it.

[umeshksingla]

It does. I wasn't aware of the format returned by the buildbot.

…

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 6:08 PM Arjun Salyan ***@***.***> wrote: If we are not doing any calculations over it and the format is not understood by the app/python directly, I'd say we should keep it simply as a string? It stores a timedelta object which does not support custom formatting. So DurationField seems just the right choice for it. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#126?email_source=notifications&email_token=ACFVMGDYIK7U32D7BLAIYM3QL5F3TA5CNFSM4I3LJQGKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD72YXSY#issuecomment-536185803>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACFVMGA4SKY44WXEVK5D45TQL5F3TANCNFSM4I3LJQGA> .

[mojca]

Is the migration really so simple and the conversion works out of the box? Will the app redo fetching data from the failed parsing cases?

Looks ok to me in any case, duration makes more sense than useless string.

[arjunsalyan]

Is the migration really so simple and the conversion works out of the box?

Yes. We were already storing a timedelta object in this field, which is supported by DurationField.

Will the app redo fetching data from the failed parsing cases?

Yes, the app always starts fetching from last build id + 1 build for each builder.

I have also tested this on EC2.

[arjunsalyan]

If this looks good, we should merge it asap. We are missing on updates due to this.