Add support for Metafields to webhooks #5167
Conversation
Coverage report
Show files with reduced coverage 🔻
Test suite run success2014 tests passing in 906 suites. Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from eea7761 |
rsperko
force-pushed
the
rsperko/webhooks-metafield-support
branch
3 times, most recently
from
d20c9a8 to
4be2a60
Compare
| @@ -76,3 +87,10 @@ function validateSubscriptions(webhookConfig: WebhooksConfig) { | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shauns I would like to get your early opinion on api version checking like this? I half wanted to add a general "api changes support" where we have a toml (?) file that we define minimum versions for changes and allow checking for that, but this is really the only place that currently needs this sort of support.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The big picture for module schemas is they move to being only defined in the server -- some modules do this already. Webhook subscriptions clearly doesn't -- so I think keeping this logic self-contained and simple and only found in this one, later removed, place, feels pragmatic.
rsperko
force-pushed
the
rsperko/webhooks-metafield-support
branch
2 times, most recently
from
879335c to
3caf63e
Compare
rsperko
force-pushed
the
rsperko/webhooks-metafield-support
branch
from
3caf63e to
eea7761
Compare
|
We detected some changes at packages/*/src and there are no updates in the .changeset. |
WHY are these changes introduced?
Add support for metafield identifiers in declarative webhook subscriptions, allowing apps to obtain metafields in their webhook payloads for their subscriptions. Core support was added here, documentation is added here, this adds cli support.
Applicable CLI support is being added here
WHAT is this pull request doing?
How to test your changes?
Post-release steps
Measuring impact
How do we know this change was effective? Please choose one:
Checklist