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

fix: hubspot: search for contact using secondary prop #3258

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 15, 2024

Conversation

anantjain45823
Copy link
Contributor

What are the changes introduced in this PR?

For Hubspot we are making a search call to fetch the already existing contacts, but we are making this call using only identifier and not with the secondary property for that identifier.
Example for email as identifier: hs_additonal_emails is the secondary property, these both can not be duplicate.

Using only email property for search API we won't get the records having that email in hs_additional_emails hence when we try to create one record we get error for duplicate records.

This PR is to start supporting secondary property as well for searching criteria

Write a brief explainer on your code changes.

What is the related Linear task?

Resolves INT-1879

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 generic utility introduced or modified. Please explain the changes.

N/A

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

N/A

@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?

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 Apr 8, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.79%. Comparing base (46e5797) to head (f7ac042).
Report is 68 commits behind head on develop.

❗ Current head f7ac042 differs from pull request most recent head 4553f82. Consider uploading reports for the commit 4553f82 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3258      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    87.70%   87.79%   +0.09%     
===========================================
  Files          550      556       +6     
  Lines        29585    29857     +272     
  Branches      7056     7116      +60     
===========================================
+ Hits         25947    26213     +266     
- Misses        3302     3308       +6     
  Partials       336      336              

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

utsabc
utsabc previously approved these changes Apr 15, 2024
krishna2020
krishna2020 previously approved these changes Apr 15, 2024
@anantjain45823 anantjain45823 dismissed stale reviews from krishna2020 and utsabc via 4553f82 April 15, 2024 08:25
@anantjain45823 anantjain45823 requested a review from utsabc April 15, 2024 08:26
@anantjain45823 anantjain45823 merged commit 0b57204 into develop Apr 15, 2024
6 of 7 checks passed
@anantjain45823 anantjain45823 deleted the fix.hsSecondaryProp branch April 15, 2024 08:27
Copy link

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants