You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature suggestion related to a problem? Please describe.
This issue describes a timestamp difference between the versioned record and the version. It was resolved by this PR which introduces a new synchronize_version_creation_timestamp option.
I notice that this option is only used to prevent overriding the version's timestamp from within the #build_version_on_update method, so only when a record is updated. However the version record created upon creation is always overriden no matter the value of the synchronize_version_creation_timestamp option.
Describe the solution you'd like to build
I'd like to propose a PR to homogenize the behavior between creation and update whenever the synchronize_version_creation_timestamp option is set to false.
I don't know if this can be considered a bug, this can probably be considered a breaking change though. Which is why I'd like to get the maintainer's take first.
Describe alternatives you've considered
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature suggestion related to a problem? Please describe.
This issue describes a timestamp difference between the versioned record and the version. It was resolved by this PR which introduces a new
synchronize_version_creation_timestamp
option.I notice that this option is only used to prevent overriding the version's timestamp from within the
#build_version_on_update
method, so only when a record is updated. However the version record created upon creation is always overriden no matter the value of thesynchronize_version_creation_timestamp
option.Describe the solution you'd like to build
I'd like to propose a PR to homogenize the behavior between creation and update whenever the
synchronize_version_creation_timestamp
option is set tofalse
.I don't know if this can be considered a bug, this can probably be considered a breaking change though. Which is why I'd like to get the maintainer's take first.
Describe alternatives you've considered
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: