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: bugsnag issue in braze for processor transformation #3396

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

sanpj2292
Copy link
Contributor

What are the changes introduced in this PR?

We got processor transformation requests for braze which actually transformed via router transformation.
The arguments for process method is very confusing when it is in processor or router transformation. We want to have a consistent way of accessing process method in the same way. Hence we are now updating the method.

Note: This would not affect any other destinations

What is the related Linear task?

Resolves INT-2104

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.

@sanpj2292 sanpj2292 self-assigned this May 21, 2024
@sanpj2292 sanpj2292 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 21, 2024 06:52
@sanpj2292 sanpj2292 requested review from utsabc and chandumlg May 21, 2024 06:52
@devops-github-rudderstack
Copy link
Contributor

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 21, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.01%. Comparing base (6fa89e3) to head (6eb12e4).
Report is 55 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3396   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    88.01%   88.01%           
========================================
  Files          565      565           
  Lines        30443    30445    +2     
  Branches      7282     7283    +1     
========================================
+ Hits         26793    26795    +2     
  Misses        3347     3347           
  Partials       303      303           

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

Copy link

Copy link
Member

@utsabc utsabc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to do a separate release for this

@devops-github-rudderstack
Copy link
Contributor

This PR is considered to be stale. It has been open for 20 days with no further activity thus it is going to be closed in 7 days. To avoid such a case please consider removing the stale label manually or add a comment to the PR.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants