Skip to content

fix: preserve application status when saving provider settings - #5455

Open
roshanasingh4 wants to merge 2 commits into
Dokploy:canaryfrom
roshanasingh4:codex/preserve-app-status-on-provider-save
Open

roshanasingh4 wants to merge 2 commits into
Dokploy:canaryfrom
roshanasingh4:codex/preserve-app-status-on-provider-save

Conversation

@roshanasingh4

@roshanasingh4 roshanasingh4 commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

What is this PR about?

Saving provider settings on an existing application currently changes its stored status to idle. For example, editing GitHub watch paths makes a running application show a gray status dot and a Start button even though its container is still running. Provider settings do not start or stop the service, so these save handlers now leave application status unchanged.

Validation

  • Regression tests cover all six provider saves and disconnecting a Git provider, with both done and running statuses.
  • Typecheck and Biome pass.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-09-13T16:55:20.647562Z 0d6e984 PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

vi.clearAllMocks();
});

it.each(["done", "running"])(

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Provider Coverage Is Incomplete

This test invokes only saveGithubProvider, but the PR independently changes five other provider-save handlers and the separate disconnect handler. A provider-specific regression or unintended status reset during disconnect could therefore pass the test suite. Extend the table-driven coverage to each changed mutation, especially disconnectGitProvider.

Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!

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.

1 participant