-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
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: use destination definition name in place of string for custom object #3737
Conversation
Test report for this run is available at: https://test-integrations-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/integrations-test-reports/rudder-transformer/3737/test-report.html |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3737 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.63% 88.68% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 592 594 +2
Lines 32206 32410 +204
Branches 7661 7731 +70
==========================================
+ Hits 28545 28742 +197
- Misses 3338 3347 +9
+ Partials 323 321 -2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
Closing this as this is releasing in a regular release |
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Fix to use destination definition name in place of a hardcoded 'Salesforce-' string for custom object, allows the same flow for Salesforce Oauth destination also.
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-2664
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 ?
We are removing the stringification of the external Id in the event payload, now the id goes in the same data type as it is sent.
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 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.