feat: onboarding customerio segment #1853
Conversation
shrouti1507
requested review from
lvrach,
cisse21,
debanjan97,
am6010,
ssbeefeater,
ruchiramoitra,
ItsSudip,
sandeepdsvs,
krishna2020 and
1abhishekpandey
as code owners
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a new destination configuration for Customer.io Audience, adding three key JSON files to define the integration's settings. The configuration includes detailed specifications for connection settings, consent management, and UI representation. The files cover database configuration, schema validation, and user interface setup, providing a comprehensive framework for integrating Customer.io Audience as a destination within the system. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
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 #1853 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 53 53
Branches 7 7
=========================================
Hits 53 53 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/db-config.json (1)
5-11: Consider adding data validation feature flagThe destination handles sensitive API keys and customer data. Consider adding the
validateDataFormatfeature flag for enhanced data validation."features": [ - "vdm-next" + "vdm-next", + "validateDataFormat" ],src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/schema.json (1)
74-80: Add pattern validation for resolutionStrategyThe
resolutionStrategyfield lacks pattern validation for environment variables.Add pattern validation:
"resolutionStrategy": { "type": "string", - "enum": ["and", "or"] + "enum": ["and", "or"], + "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(and|or)$" }src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/ui-config.json (2)
138-146: Simplify duplicate feature flag conditionsThe feature flags array contains duplicate entries with different values.
Simplify the conditions:
"featureFlags": [ - { - "configKey": "AMP_enable-gcm", - "value": false - }, - { - "configKey": "AMP_enable-gcm" - } + { + "configKey": "AMP_enable-gcm", + "value": false + } ],
22-22: Standardize placeholder formatThe placeholder format is inconsistent across fields. Some use "e.g:" while others use "e.g.".
Standardize the format:
- "placeholder": "e.g: 88f02580XXXXXXXcf18", + "placeholder": "e.g., 88f02580XXXXXXXcf18",Also applies to: 32-32, 42-42
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/db-config.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/schema.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/ui-config.json(1 hunks)
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/db-config.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/ui-config.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/ui-config.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/ui-config.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/db-config.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/schema.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/ui-config.json(1 hunks)test/data/validation/destinations/customerio_segment.json(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/ui-config.json
- src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/schema.json
- src/configurations/destinations/customerio_segment/db-config.json
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (java-kotlin)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
test/data/validation/destinations/customerio_segment.json (1)
1-19: Verify schema consistency with configuration files.Let's ensure the required fields in this validation test match the schema definition.
✅ Verification successful
Schema requirements are consistent with configuration
The required fields in the validation test (
siteId,apiKey, andappApiKey) match the configuration files:
apiKeyandappApiKeyare marked as secret keyssiteId(assiteID) andapiKeyare included in the configuration🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if the required fields in validation test match the schema # Find and check the schema file echo "Checking schema definition..." fd --type f schema.json -x cat {} \; | jq -r '.required[]' 2>/dev/null || echo "Schema file not found" # Find and check the UI config echo -e "\nChecking UI configuration..." fd --type f ui-config.json -x cat {} \; | jq -r '.required[]' 2>/dev/null || echo "UI config file not found"Length of output: 430
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for CustomerIO specific schema or configuration files echo "Searching for CustomerIO specific files..." rg -l -i "customerio" --type json echo -e "\nChecking content of found files..." fd . -e json -x sh -c 'echo "=== {} ==="; cat {} | grep -i "customerio" -A 10 -B 10' \;Length of output: 65811
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
test/data/validation/destinations/customerio_audience.json (1)
1-28: Enhance test coverage with additional validation scenarios.While the basic validation cases are covered, consider adding the following test scenarios:
- Edge cases for string patterns (e.g., maximum length of 100 characters)
- Validation for consent management configurations
- Connection mode validation
- Environment variable syntax validation (e.g.,
env.VAR_NAME)Example test case for maximum length validation:
[ // ... existing test cases ... + { + "config": { + "siteId": "a".repeat(101), + "apiKey": "test-api-key", + "appApiKey": "test-app-api-key" + }, + "result": false, + "err": ["siteId must match pattern"] + } ]src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/db-config.json (1)
32-34: Consider adding version information for beta features.Since this integration is marked as beta, it would be helpful to track the version number in the options object. This helps with feature deprecation and upgrade paths.
"options": { - "isBeta": true + "isBeta": true, + "version": "0.1.0" }src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/schema.json (2)
7-18: Add descriptions for configuration properties.Consider adding
descriptionfields to improve documentation of the configuration properties. This helps users understand the purpose and requirements of each field."apiKey": { "type": "string", + "description": "API Key from Customer.io Track APP Keys", "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" }, "appApiKey": { "type": "string", + "description": "APP API Key from Customer.io APP API Keys", "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" }, "siteId": { "type": "string", + "description": "Site ID from Customer.io Track APP Keys", "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" }
36-86: Consider simplifying consent management schema structure.The current nested structure for consent management is quite complex. Consider flattening it or breaking it into smaller sub-schemas for better maintainability.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/db-config.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/schema.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/ui-config.json(1 hunks)test/data/validation/destinations/customerio_audience.json(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (java-kotlin)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/db-config.json (1)
30-30: LGTM! Proper handling of sensitive information.The
secretKeysarray correctly identifies sensitive fields that should be handled securely.src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/ui-config.json (1)
141-152: LGTM! Clear documentation for consent category IDs.The note clearly explains the deprecation of category names and recommends using IDs, which is a good practice for maintaining stability.
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/ui-config.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/db-config.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/configurations/destinations/customerio_audience/schema.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Write a brief explainer on your code changes.
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-2610
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
New Features
Documentation
Tests