Skip to content

Conversation

@alubenskyi
Copy link
Contributor

Replace this text with a description of your proposed change.

JIRA Ticket

+ "\"authorize\":true,"
+ "\"fileUris\":[\"fileUri.json\"],"
+ "\"localeWorkflows\":[{\"targetLocaleId\":\"fr-FR\",\"workflowUid\":\"workflowUid\"}]"
+ "\"localeWorkflows\":[{\"targetLocaleId\":\"fr-FR\",\"workflowUid\":\"workflowUid\",\"contentAssignments\":null}]"

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What happens if [{\"targetLocaleId\":\"fr-FR\",\"workflowUid\":\"workflowUid\"}] is passed (without \"contentAssignments\":null)? It must be possible to pass without it for backward compatibility.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"contentAssignments" field is not required and nullable.

So I think it will be ok to use it without contentAssignments as now.

Tests were added in another PR to cover this case: https://github.com/Smartling/jobs-facade/pull/135

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

agree with pavel, I'd remain this test data as is, and add another with contentAssignements field.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@alubenskyi alubenskyi Nov 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tests were added in another PR for job-facade service to cover this case: https://github.com/Smartling/jobs-facade/pull/135

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

image

Here I setuped input pto without contentAssignments array, as is on prod for now.
requestString contains contentAssignments = null because request.getBody().readUtf8() prints all fields from pto's with default values if such field explicitly is not defined.

@PavelLoparev PavelLoparev self-requested a review November 21, 2024 08:51
Copy link

@PavelLoparev PavelLoparev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm ok but let's wait other's review

Copy link
Contributor

@dimitrystd dimitrystd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good. But waiting for one more proposed test case.

@alubenskyi alubenskyi changed the title Con 592 update job batches public sdk feat: con 592 update job batches v2 endpoint Nov 26, 2024
@alubenskyi alubenskyi merged commit e1b9172 into master Nov 26, 2024
2 checks passed
@alubenskyi alubenskyi deleted the CON-592-update-job-batches-public-sdk branch November 26, 2024 14:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants