chore: Delete key from customer center survey event #2204
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
facumenzella
added
pr:RevenueCatUI
pr:other
feat:Customer Center
and removed
pr:RevenueCatUI
labels
📸 Snapshot TestError generating snapshot comparison
🛸 Powered by Emerge Tools |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2204 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 80.54% 80.47% -0.07%
==========================================
Files 277 277
Lines 9456 9460 +4
Branches 1334 1335 +1
==========================================
- Hits 7616 7613 -3
- Misses 1280 1287 +7
Partials 560 560 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
This is the counterpart of RevenueCat/purchases-ios#4837
Description
survey_option_title_keyis ignored in the backend, so there's no need to have it here.This PR removes it and adds a test that verifies backwards compatibility with stored events. However, I think we should move to an implementation similar to iOS, where the StoredEvents contains an already encoded version of the event. That would remove any need to test backwards compatibility.