-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
chore: add connection mode in schema json for moengage #1929
Conversation
WalkthroughThe change modifies the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1929 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 53 53
Branches 7 7
=========================================
Hits 53 53 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/configurations/destinations/moengage/schema.json (1)
25-73
: Review of New "connectionMode" Property Structure
The addition of theconnectionMode
property is clear and well-structured. It correctly defines an object with sub-properties for different platforms and explicitly restricts allowed string values viaenum
. This adheres to the design goal of constraining connection modes per platform.A minor suggestion:
To ensure that no unexpected properties are added withinconnectionMode
, consider adding"additionalProperties": false
inside its definition. This would tighten the schema validation in line with the overall schema’s intent (using"additionalProperties": false
at the root level).Example diff suggestion:
"connectionMode": { "type": "object", + "additionalProperties": false, "properties": { "web": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud", "device"] }, "android": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud", "device"] }, "ios": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud", "device"] }, "reactnative": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud", "device"] }, "unity": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud"] }, "amp": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud"] }, "flutter": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud"] }, "cordova": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud"] }, "shopify": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud"] }, "cloud": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud"] }, "warehouse": { "type": "string", "enum": ["cloud"] } } }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/configurations/destinations/moengage/schema.json
(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (java-kotlin)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/configurations/destinations/moengage/schema.json (1)
912-913
: Relaxed Top-Level Schema ValidationChanging
"additionalProperties"
fromfalse
totrue
at the top level of the configuration schema addresses the error by allowing properties not explicitly defined. This resolves themust NOT have additional properties
error. However, ensure that this intentional relaxation aligns with your overall design requirements and does not permit unexpected data to be added unintentionally.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/configurations/destinations/moengage/schema.json
(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/moengage/schema.json
(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/configurations/destinations/moengage/schema.json
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (java-kotlin)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/configurations/destinations/moengage/schema.json (1)
24-71
: ConnectionMode Schema Addition & Migration ConsiderationsThe new
"connectionMode"
property provides structured validations for various platforms (e.g.,"web"
,"android"
,"ios"
, etc.) with clearly defined enumerated values. This addition should help in validating the connection mode input. Consider whether you might want stricter control on extra keys by adding an"additionalProperties": false
within this object if only the specified keys should be accepted.
Also, note the earlier reviewer comment () regarding running connection mode migrations for the legacy form builder. Please verify that these changes have been thoroughly evaluated against older implementations.
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
This PR addresses an error in the web app:
must NOT have additional properties
.Upon investigation, we discovered that schema validation for connectionMode was missing, so we’ve added the necessary validation rules.
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-3279
Please explain the objectives of your changes below
Put down any required details on the broader aspect of your changes. If there are any dependent changes, mandatorily mention them here
Any changes to existing capabilities/behaviour, mention the reason & what are the changes ?
N/A
Any new dependencies introduced with this change?
N/A
Any new checks got introduced or modified in test suites. Please explain the changes.
N/A
Developer checklist
My code follows the style guidelines of this project
No breaking changes are being introduced.
All related docs linked with the PR?
All changes manually tested?
Any documentation changes needed with this change?
I have executed schemaGenerator tests and updated schema if needed
Are sensitive fields marked as secret in definition config?
My test cases and placeholders use only masked/sample values for sensitive fields
Is the PR limited to 10 file changes & one task?
Reviewer checklist
Is the type of change in the PR title appropriate as per the changes?
Verified that there are no credentials or confidential data exposed with the changes.
Summary by CodeRabbit