feat: support http form body types #1845
Conversation
aashishmalik
requested review from
lvrach,
cisse21,
debanjan97,
am6010,
ssbeefeater,
ruchiramoitra,
ItsSudip,
shrouti1507,
sandeepdsvs,
krishna2020 and
1abhishekpandey
as code owners
WalkthroughThe pull request updates the JSON schema for HTTP destination configuration by expanding the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested Reviewers
Poem
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 (
|
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/configurations/destinations/http/schema.json (1)
23-23: Consider adding descriptions for the format types.To improve user experience, consider adding descriptions to clarify the differences between the formats:
- FORM: multipart/form-data for file uploads
- FORM-URLENCODED: application/x-www-form-urlencoded for simple forms
Apply this diff to add descriptions:
"format": { "type": "string", "enum": ["JSON", "XML", "FORM", "FORM-URLENCODED"], - "default": "JSON" + "default": "JSON", + "description": "The format of the request body", + "enumDescriptions": { + "JSON": "application/json - For structured JSON data", + "XML": "application/xml - For XML data", + "FORM": "multipart/form-data - For form data with file uploads", + "FORM-URLENCODED": "application/x-www-form-urlencoded - For simple form data" + } }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/configurations/destinations/http/schema.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/configurations/destinations/http/schema.json (2)
23-23: LGTM! The format enum expansion looks good.
The addition of "FORM" and "FORM-URLENCODED" formats provides good flexibility for HTTP requests while maintaining backward compatibility.
23-23: Verify CSRF protection for form submissions.
Since form submissions can be vulnerable to CSRF attacks, ensure that the implementation includes appropriate CSRF protection mechanisms.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1845 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 53 53
Branches 7 7
=========================================
Hits 53 53 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json (3)
177-186: LGTM! New form body formats added correctly.
The new FORM and FORM-URLENCODED options are properly integrated into the format selector.
177-186: Verify schema.json alignment.
The AI summary mentions updates to schema.json to include the new format values. Let's verify the consistency between ui-config.json and schema.json.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now verify the schema consistency. The HTTP destination's schema.json file shows:
- The
formatfield is properly defined in the schema with the new values:
"format": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["JSON", "XML", "FORM", "FORM-URLENCODED"],
"default": "JSON"
}- It's listed as a required field:
"required": ["apiUrl", "auth", "method", "format"]This matches perfectly with the UI configuration changes that added the "FORM" and "FORM-URLENCODED" options.
Schema is properly aligned with UI changes.
The schema.json has been correctly updated to include all format values shown in the ui-config.json, maintaining consistency between the UI options and validation schema.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that schema.json has been updated with the new format values
# Search for format enum in schema.json
rg -A 5 -B 5 '"format":\s*{' --type json
Length of output: 132
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find schema definitions
# First, let's locate the schema file
fd schema.json
# Then let's search for format-related content with fixed strings
rg --type json -A 10 '"format"'
Length of output: 39566
177-186: Verify content-type headers for new formats.
Please ensure that appropriate content-type headers are set automatically or validated for the new formats:
- FORM should use
multipart/form-data - FORM-URLENCODED should use
application/x-www-form-urlencoded
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "label": "FORM", | ||
| "value": "FORM" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "label": "FORM-URLENCODED", | ||
| "value": "FORM-URLENCODED" | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider updating batching configuration visibility.
The batching configuration is currently only visible when format is "JSON". Consider updating the preRequisites to explicitly disable batching for the new form formats or implement support for them.
{
"type": "checkbox",
"label": "Enable Batching",
"configKey": "isBatchingEnabled",
"default": false,
"preRequisites": {
"fields": [
{
"configKey": "format",
- "value": "JSON"
+ "value": ["JSON"]
}
]
}
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Write a brief explainer on your code changes.
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
JSON,XML,FORM, andFORM-URLENCODED.