Skip to content
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: adjust shopify upgrade to v2 #3924

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vinayteki95
Copy link
Contributor

What are the changes introduced in this PR?

  • Source Integrations (shopify and adjust) are implemented in V2 spec
  • Shopify and adjust are also available in previous v1 and v0 spec respectively
  • Source implementation version is picked up based on upgradedToSourceTransformV2 in features.ts
  • Compatibility test cases for sources run for both values (true and false) of upgradedToSourceTransformV2 now

What is the related Linear task?

Resolves INT-2899

Please explain the objectives of your changes below

To upgrade sources which are dependent on query_parameters to V2 while maintaining fallback code incase of major errors

Any changes to existing capabilities/behaviour, mention the reason & what are the changes ?

Component test cases for sources run twice with 2 different feature.ts upgradedToSourceTransformV2 values.

Any new dependencies introduced with this change?

N/A

Any new generic utility introduced or modified. Please explain the changes.

N/A

Any technical or performance related pointers to consider with the change?

In case of both shopify and adjust input specification conversion is going to happen twice.
Example case:
Shopify gets v1 request (with upgradedToSourceTransformV2 = true and rudder-server is not upgraded yet) - rare case
v1 request is converted to v2 spec first and shopifyv2 implementation internally coverts v2 to v1 and uses the same v1 code.
This will be a temporary performance concern until we are happy with the stability of the deployment.

@coderabbitai review


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?

  • Is the PR limited to 10 file changes?

  • Is the PR limited to one linear task?

  • Are relevant unit and component test-cases added in new readability format?

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.

@devops-github-rudderstack
Copy link
Contributor

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 9, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.49%. Comparing base (0965f30) to head (5f540eb).
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3924   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    90.48%   90.49%           
========================================
  Files          615      617    +2     
  Lines        32359    32389   +30     
  Branches      7687     7692    +5     
========================================
+ Hits         29281    29310   +29     
- Misses        2822     2855   +33     
+ Partials       256      224   -32     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

koladilip
koladilip previously approved these changes Dec 10, 2024
test/apitests/service.api.test.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@vinayteki95 vinayteki95 marked this pull request as ready for review December 12, 2024 08:01
@vinayteki95 vinayteki95 requested review from a team and sivashanmukh as code owners December 12, 2024 08:01
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.

3 participants