SALTO-3176 SALTO-7190 - salesforce - create dependencies based on formulas in metadata instances #7222
Conversation
…176-salesforce-formula-fields-in-some-types-are-saved-as-string-type
…176-salesforce-formula-fields-in-some-types-are-saved-as-string-type
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks a lot like formula_deps.ts. Can they not be the same filter?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW, "no" is an OK answer, just explain why.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
both filters at the bottom line parse formulas to create dependencies, but each works on different types of elements and therefore have different approach to how to get to the formula. in addition formulas in custom objects (parsed in formula_dpes) are formula types (have an inner field named formula and other fields), and formulas in metadata instances are just strings that their value happens to be a formula.
this is mainly why @tamtamirr and I decided to have a separate filter.
@tamtamirr also suggested to rename formula_deps to something like custom_object_formula_dependencies, so i will probably change it in the next round of this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good, let's do the rename (watch out for the adapter config though).
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const filter: FilterCreator = ({ config }) => ({ | ||
| name: 'addFormulaDependencies', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would align the filter name with the file name.
| const filter: FilterCreator = ({ config }) => ({ | ||
| name: 'addFormulaDependencies', | ||
| onFetch: ensureSafeFilterFetch({ | ||
| warningMessage: 'Error while parsing formulas', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe add that this is specifically in metadata instances.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here I meant add this to the warning message.
| warningMessage: 'Error while parsing formulas', | ||
| config, | ||
| fetchFilterFunc: async fetchedElements => { | ||
| const instanceElements = fetchedElements.filter(isInstanceElement) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why define this? You can just fetchedElements.filter(isInstanceElement).forEach(...).
| const config = { ...defaultFilterContext } | ||
| filter = getFormulaDependencies({ config }) as FilterWith<'onFetch'> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just:
| const config = { ...defaultFilterContext } | |
| filter = getFormulaDependencies({ config }) as FilterWith<'onFetch'> | |
| filter = getFormulaDependencies({ config: defaultFilterContext }) as FilterWith<'onFetch'> |
| [CORE_ANNOTATIONS.PARENT]: [customObjectTypeMock1], | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| const workFlowRule = createInstanceElement( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is one validationRuleInstance and the other workFlowRule? Be consistent.
| [CORE_ANNOTATIONS.PARENT]: [customObjectTypeMock1], | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| const workFlowRule = createInstanceElement( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since it's "Workflow" the camel case here should be workflowRule.
| }) | ||
| it('should add dependencies to the instances', async () => { | ||
| await filter.onFetch([...instanceElements, ...types]) | ||
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-underscore-dangle |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of all of these eslint ignores, use instance.annotations[CORE_ANNOTATIONS.GENERATED_DEPENDENCIES].
…176-salesforce-formula-fields-in-some-types-are-saved-as-string-type
create dependencies based on formulas in metadata instances
_genereated_dependencies will be created for every metadata instance that contains a formula field, if the field's name is in the FORMULA_FIELDS constant.
Release Notes:
Salesforce:
User Notifications:
none