fix: handling invalid timestamp for adjust source #3866
Conversation
|
Test report for this run is available at: https://test-integrations-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/integrations-test-reports/rudder-transformer/3866/test-report.html |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #3866 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 89.02% 89.05% +0.03%
===========================================
Files 618 619 +1
Lines 33003 33079 +76
Branches 7792 7816 +24
===========================================
+ Hits 29382 29460 +78
+ Misses 3338 3305 -33
- Partials 283 314 +31 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
src/v0/sources/adjust/transform.js
Outdated
| const rawTimestamp = formattedPayload.created_at; | ||
| try { | ||
| const createdAt = Number(rawTimestamp); | ||
| const ts = new Date(createdAt * 1000).toISOString(); | ||
| message.setProperty('originalTimestamp', ts); | ||
| message.setProperty('timestamp', ts); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| throw new TransformationError( | ||
| `[Adjust] Invalid timestamp "${rawTimestamp}": ${error.message}`, | ||
| ); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Write in it's own method
|
| @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ | |||
| const { TransformationError } = require('@rudderstack/integrations-lib'); | |||
|
|
|||
| const processTimestamp = (rawTimestamp) => { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Better name would be getTimestamp I believe. Let's make this minor change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we keep in the outside utils? can this be useful in other destination built down the line?
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Write a brief explainer on your code changes.
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-2873
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 generic utility introduced or modified. Please explain the changes.
N/A
Any technical or performance related pointers to consider with the change?
N/A
@coderabbitai review
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?
Is the PR limited to 10 file changes?
Is the PR limited to one linear task?
Are relevant unit and component test-cases added in new readability format?
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.