refactor(users): Move hardcoded email subjects to constants
Type of Change
- [ ] Bugfix
- [ ] New feature
- [ ] Enhancement
- [x] Refactoring
- [ ] Dependency updates
- [ ] Documentation
- [ ] CI/CD
Description
Change the hardcoded email subject to constants
Additional Changes
- [ ] This PR modifies the API contract
- [ ] This PR modifies the database schema
- [ ] This PR modifies application configuration/environment variables
Motivation and Context
refactor based on this issue - #5940 link Closes #5940.
How did you test it?
change_apply_before.txt change_apply_after.txt
Checklist
- [x] I formatted the code
cargo +nightly fmt --all - [x] I addressed lints thrown by
cargo clippy - [x] I reviewed the submitted code
- [ ] I added unit tests for my changes where possible
Review changes with SemanticDiff.
Analyzed 6 of 6 files.
Overall, the semantic diff is 12% smaller than the GitHub diff.
| Filename | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| :heavy_check_mark: | crates/router/src/consts.rs | Analyzed |
| :heavy_check_mark: | crates/router/src/workflows/api_key_expiry.rs | 3.39% smaller |
| :heavy_check_mark: | crates/router/src/services/email/types.rs | Analyzed |
| :heavy_check_mark: | crates/router/src/core/recon.rs | 35.45% smaller |
| :heavy_check_mark: | crates/router/src/core/user.rs | 13.43% smaller |
| :heavy_check_mark: | crates/router/src/consts/user.rs | Analyzed |
Fix the PR title and link the issue. I'll approve the workflow.
What is the title of the PR supposed be?
@ThisIsMani
I link the issue in the motivation and context part but I still cannot pass the check.
@ThisIsMani Please review the change.
@ThisIsMani
Why is it failed to run?
Please recheck the variables again.
Please recheck the variables again.
Those failure in ci-pr is related to the variables name?
You code is not compiling. That's why the run is failed.
You can check by running just check.
You code is not compiling. That's why the run is failed.
You can check by running
just check.
Thanks!
Hi @ThisIsMani ,
I think "clonable" typo is not related to this PR.
I think "clonable" typo is not related to this PR.
You can ignore that, shouldn't be a problem. Moreover, it's not a required check, so it shouldn't block your PR from being merged.