-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 114
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: allowing traffic type dynamically for split.io #3425
Conversation
Test report for this run is available at: https://test-integrations-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/integrations-test-reports/rudder-transformer/3425/test-report.html |
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #3425 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 88.01% 88.01%
========================================
Files 569 569
Lines 30634 30635 +1
Branches 7323 7326 +3
========================================
+ Hits 26961 26962 +1
+ Misses 3366 3338 -28
- Partials 307 335 +28 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
make sure to update destination documentation
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Traffic type was being mapped from UI only, now, we have added mapping from the payload. The UI mapping will work as default traffic type if the payload field is missing.
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-2200
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.