feat(http): add support for form format #1876
Conversation
sandeepdsvs
requested review from
lvrach,
cisse21,
debanjan97,
am6010,
ssbeefeater,
ItsSudip,
krishna2020 and
1abhishekpandey
as code owners
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces an enhancement to the HTTP destination configuration by adding a new "FORM" format option. This modification expands the existing JSON and XML formats to include form data handling in the configuration schema. The change is implemented consistently across both the JSON schema and UI configuration files, providing users with an additional method for specifying HTTP request body formats. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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 #1876 +/- ##
=========================================
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: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/configurations/destinations/http/schema.json (1)
23-23: Document the new FORM format option.The schema changes look good. Consider updating the documentation to:
- Describe the new FORM format option
- Provide examples of how form data will be formatted
- List any limitations or specific behaviors users should be aware of
Would you like me to help draft the documentation updates for the new FORM format option?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/configurations/destinations/http/schema.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (java-kotlin)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/configurations/destinations/http/schema.json (1)
23-23: LGTM! The implementation is consistent and backward compatible.The changes to add FORM format support are well-structured and maintain consistency between the schema and UI configuration. The implementation:
- Preserves backward compatibility by keeping JSON as the default
- Maintains proper validation through the schema
- Adds the feature without impacting existing functionality
Also applies to: 172-175
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Add support for form format
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-2983
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
Improvements