fix: http enchancements #1759
fix: http enchancements #1759
Conversation
aashishmalik
requested review from
lvrach,
cisse21,
debanjan97,
am6010,
ssbeefeater,
AchuthaSourabhC,
ruchiramoitra,
ItsSudip,
shrouti1507,
sandeepdsvs,
krishna2020 and
1abhishekpandey
as code owners
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@aashishmalik has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 2 minutes and 29 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe changes involve updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 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 #1759 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 53 53
Branches 7 7
=========================================
Hits 53 53 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
aashishmalik
force-pushed
the
fix.http-enchancements
branch
from
d890548
to
903971d
Compare
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/configurations/destinations/http/db-config.json (1)
125-128: Document the feature flag behavior.Since this introduces a new feature flagging mechanism, it would be helpful to document:
- The purpose of this feature flag
- The expected behavior when enabled/disabled
- Impact on existing integrations
Would you like me to help create documentation for this feature flag?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- src/configurations/destinations/http/db-config.json (1 hunks)
- src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json (3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/configurations/destinations/http/db-config.json (2)
125-128: Potential breaking change warning.Setting
featureFlagValuetofalsewill hide the HTTP webhook functionality. This could be considered a breaking change for users who are currently using this feature.
125-128: Verify the scope and impact of the feature flag.The feature flag name
AMP_http_webhooksuggests AMP-specific control, but it's implemented at the root level which could affect all platforms. Please verify if this is intentional.Consider moving this feature flag to the AMP-specific configuration section if it's meant to only affect AMP platform.
✅ Verification successful
Feature flag implementation is correctly scoped to HTTP webhook destination
Based on the verification results:
- The feature flag
AMP_http_webhookis only referenced in the HTTP webhook destination configuration file- The implementation follows the standard pattern for feature flags in the destination configurations
- The validation tests show proper URL validation and security measures are in place
- No other files in the codebase reference this feature flag
The feature flag implementation is correctly scoped and doesn't introduce any breaking changes or security concerns.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if there are AMP-specific configurations or usages # that relate to this feature flag # Check for AMP-related configurations echo "Checking for AMP-related configurations..." rg -l "AMP_http_webhook" # Check for feature flag usage in UI components echo "Checking for feature flag usage..." ast-grep --pattern 'featureFlag$$$AMP_http_webhook'Length of output: 356
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try a broader search strategy # Search for any mentions of the feature flag echo "Searching for feature flag mentions..." rg -l "AMP_http_webhook" # Search for HTTP webhook configurations echo "Searching for HTTP webhook configurations..." rg -l "http.*webhook" --type json # Check UI configurations for AMP-specific settings echo "Checking UI configurations..." fd -e json -x rg -l "AMP.*http" {} \; # Look for platform-specific configurations echo "Checking platform configurations..." fd -e json -x rg -l "\"platforms\".*AMP" {} \;Length of output: 840
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's examine the HTTP webhook configuration in detail # Check the content of db-config.json for platform configurations echo "Examining db-config.json..." cat src/configurations/destinations/http/db-config.json | jq '.platforms' # Look for any AMP-specific sections in db-config.json echo "Checking AMP-specific configurations..." cat src/configurations/destinations/http/db-config.json | grep -A 10 -B 10 "AMP" # Check webhook validation configurations echo "Checking webhook validation configurations..." cat test/data/validation/destinations/webhook.jsonLength of output: 27390
aashishmalik
force-pushed
the
fix.http-enchancements
branch
from
903971d
to
cf5f551
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json (2)
529-530: LGTM! Consider documenting these UI enhancements.The addition of JSON path validation and view control in the Request Body mapping improves the user experience by validating JSON paths and controlling the visibility of JSON keys.
Consider updating the documentation to explain these UI enhancements and their benefits for users configuring HTTP destinations.
Line range hint
529-584: Overall implementation looks solid and well-structured.The changes consistently implement JSON path validation and view control across all three mapping sections (Request Body, Query Parameters, and Headers). This enhancement improves the user experience while maintaining a consistent interface throughout the configuration.
Key points:
- Consistent implementation across all mapping sections
- Non-breaking changes as these are UI enhancements
- Improved validation for JSON paths
Consider implementing these UI enhancements as reusable components if they prove valuable for other destination configurations in the future.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json (3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json (2)
556-557: LGTM! Consistent implementation with Request Body section.The Query Parameters section correctly implements the same validation and view control features, maintaining consistency across the configuration interface.
583-584: LGTM! Verify feature flag implementation.The Headers section correctly implements the validation and view control features, completing the consistent implementation across all mapping sections.
Let's verify the feature flag implementation mentioned in the PR objectives:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the feature flag implementation.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response regarding the feature flag implementation:
Feature flags are properly implemented in the HTTP destination configuration
The
jsonPathValidationandhideKeysJsonViewproperties are correctly configured as feature flags in the HTTP destination's UI configuration, specifically in the Request Body mapping section. These flags are consistently implemented across all mapping sections, following the same pattern used in other destinations.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any feature flag definitions related to these UI enhancements # Search for feature flag definitions rg -l "jsonPathValidation|hideKeysJsonView" --type json # Search for any feature flag conditions ast-grep --pattern 'featureFlags: $_'Length of output: 149
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any feature flag related code in the repository rg -A 5 "featureFlag|feature_flag|FEATURE_FLAG" --type js --type ts --type json # Check the specific file content to understand the context cat src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.jsonLength of output: 604406
aashishmalik
force-pushed
the
fix.http-enchancements
branch
from
cf5f551
to
b0e7f60
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/configurations/destinations/http/db-config.json (1)
125-128: Consider clarifying the feature flag name.The implementation of feature flagging looks good, but the flag name
AMP_http_webhookmight be misleading since this configuration supports multiple platforms beyond AMP (android, ios, web, etc.). Consider using a more generic name likehttp_webhook_enabledto better reflect its scope.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- src/configurations/destinations/http/db-config.json (1 hunks)
- src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json (3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/configurations/destinations/http/db-config.json (1)
125-128: Verify feature flag implementation consistency.Let's ensure this feature flag implementation follows the same pattern used in other destinations.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the complete pattern including the
featureFlagValuefield to ensure full consistency.
Feature flag implementation is consistent with other destinations
The implementation follows the exact same pattern used across other destinations (zoho, wunderkind, salesforce_oauth_sandbox), with:
- Consistent structure using
hiddenobject- Feature flag name prefixed with
AMP_featureFlagValueset tofalse🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check feature flag implementation patterns across other destinations # Search for similar feature flag implementations in other destination configs echo "Searching for feature flag patterns in other destination configs..." rg -U --multiline '"hidden":\s*\{[^}]*"featureFlagName"' src/configurations/destinations/Length of output: 944
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the complete hidden block with featureFlagValue for all destinations rg -U --multiline '"hidden":\s*\{[^}]*\}' src/configurations/destinations/Length of output: 1406
aashishmalik
force-pushed
the
fix.http-enchancements
branch
from
b5e79ec
to
6eb5668
Compare
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Added feature flag for HTTP destination
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-XXX
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
These updates aim to provide users with better data handling and visibility options within the application.