Skip to content
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

SALTO-4207: Missing reference in FlexiPage criterias #7243

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 16, 2025

Conversation

AlmogMesilaty
Copy link
Contributor

SALTO-4207: Missing reference in FlexiPage criterias


Workspace Diff: salto-io/almog-sf@75f4631#diff-bf6841af5dcdd8f35c9cacd4cbee8c00d31a550c52f2d40ab84298d222163cc8


Release Notes:
Salesforce Adapter:

  • Improved IA between LightningPages and CustomFields.

User Notifications:
Salesforce Adapter:

  • References will be added from UiFormulaCriterion (LightningPage) to CustomField.

@AlmogMesilaty AlmogMesilaty requested a review from yelly February 11, 2025 13:28
@@ -60,8 +61,8 @@ describe('changeValidator', () => {
metadataType: ITEM_INSTANCE,
},
fields: {
[COMPONENT_INSTANCE_FILED_NAMES.COMPONENT_INSTANCE_PROPERTIES]: {
refType: new ListType(componentInstanceProperty),
[ITEM_INSTANCE_FIELD_NAMES.COMPONENT]: {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this a bug you found?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It’s not a bug, the structure of the mocked Flow instance doesn’t affect the functionality. I wanted the structure to be correct, and apparently, ItemInstance contains a single ComponentInstance rather than an array of instances: here

Comment on lines 1039 to 1041
expect(componentInstanceCreatedReference).toBeInstanceOf(ReferenceExpression)
expect(itemComponentInstanceCreatedReference).toBeInstanceOf(ReferenceExpression)
expect(fieldInstanceCreatedReference).toBeInstanceOf(ReferenceExpression)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Don't we want to check we got the right reference?

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 13, 2025

Coverage Status

coverage: 93.65% (+0.001%) from 93.649%
when pulling 86cc964 on AlmogMesilaty:SALTO-4207
into f267e84 on salto-io:main.

@AlmogMesilaty AlmogMesilaty merged commit f01f262 into salto-io:main Feb 16, 2025
55 checks passed
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.

3 participants