CustomerInfoResponseHandler: return CustomerInfo instead of error if the response was successful#1778
Merged
Merged
Conversation
6294bb3 to
dfb5bb4
Compare
8bf0e45 to
5582a89
Compare
dfb5bb4 to
88d2c06
Compare
… if the response was successful Fixes [SDKONCALL-62]. The behavior in version 3.x was that we would return a `CustomerInfo` AND the attribute errors. [The test in that version](https://github.com/RevenueCat/purchases-ios/blob/3.14.2/PurchasesTests/SubscriberAttributes/BackendSubscriberAttributesTests.swift#L370-L404) however only verified that the error was returned. When we converted `(Value, Error)` callbacks to using `Result` (#1387), I assumed this was an error. Because of that incomplete test, we didn't notice this wasn't the desired behavior. If the backend returns a 200, it's assumed that the errors aren't more important than the correct `CustomerInfo`. The new implementation simply logs the attribute errors (which is now tested), and returns the `CustomerInfo`.
88d2c06 to
112d636
Compare
tonidero
approved these changes
Jul 29, 2022
|
|
||
| var loggedMessages = [String]() | ||
| let originalLogHandler = Logger.logHandler | ||
| defer { Logger.logHandler = originalLogHandler } |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
😮 Didn't know about this. Interesting!
| return ErrorUtils.backendError( | ||
| withBackendCode: self.code, | ||
| backendMessage: self.message, | ||
| message: self.attributeErrors.description, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm are we still using the backendMessage parameter anywhere? I couldn't find a usage of it but I might be wrong.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh good catch! I changed this before I fixed #1776 and forgot to add it back. Thanks for the thorough review 👏🏻
| @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "headers" : { | |||
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to make sure, these files are snapshots of the requests done during the unit tests. Then the tests check that the request remains the same, correct? This is nice!
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup exactly :) without needing to check each thing individually.
taquitos
reviewed
Jul 29, 2022
taquitos
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ugh, this review was sitting in draft.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should make a new API so this error logging is explicit
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. I didn't feel too bad about this instance because it's covered by a test, so removing it would make it fail.
I don't love the implicit logging, but I think explicit logging of errors everywhere would be even worse :/ so I'm not sure how to improve this at the moment.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that's a great point, as long as it's covered by a test, this is much more palatable 😄
Merged
NachoSoto
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2022
NachoSoto
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2022
NachoSoto
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2022
### Fixes: * `CustomerInfoResponseHandler`: return `CustomerInfo` instead of error if the response was successful (#1778) via NachoSoto (@NachoSoto) * Error logging: `logErrorIfNeeded` no longer prints message if it's the same as the error description (#1776) via NachoSoto (@NachoSoto) * fix another broken link in docC docs (#1777) via aboedo (@aboedo) * fix links to restorePurchase (#1775) via aboedo (@aboedo) * fix getProducts docs broken link (#1772) via aboedo (@aboedo) ### Improvements: * `Logger`: wrap `message` in `@autoclosure` to avoid creating when `LogLevel` is disabled (#1781) via NachoSoto (@NachoSoto) ### Other changes: * Lint: fixed `SubscriberAttributesManager` (#1774) via NachoSoto (@NachoSoto)
NachoSoto
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2022
Follow up to #1776. That PR added a lot of tests to cover error logging, and #1778 introduced a small error that wasn't covered: if attribute errors are empty, the `localizedDescription` could end up becoming `"[:]"`. This fixes that. ## Examples: This was the underlying error returned (the output of `error.localizedDescription`): #### Before: > [:] #### After: > There was a credentials issue. Check the underlying error for more details. And this is what was logged (notice that I also fixed `ErrorCode.invalidCredentialsError` to not log as an "Apple Error"): #### Before: > 🍎‼️ There was a credentials issue. Check the underlying error for more details. [:] #### After: > 😿‼️ There was a credentials issue. Check the underlying error for more details.
NachoSoto
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2022
Follow up to #1776. That PR added a lot of tests to cover error logging, and #1778 introduced a small error that wasn't covered: if attribute errors are empty, the `localizedDescription` could end up becoming `"[:]"`. This fixes that. ## Examples: This was the underlying error returned (the output of `error.localizedDescription`): #### Before: > [:] #### After: > There was a credentials issue. Check the underlying error for more details. And this is what was logged (notice that I also fixed `ErrorCode.invalidCredentialsError` to not log as an "Apple Error"): #### Before: > 🍎‼️ There was a credentials issue. Check the underlying error for more details. [:] #### After: > 😿‼️ There was a credentials issue. Check the underlying error for more details.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Fixes SDKONCALL-62.
The behavior in version 3.x was that we would return a
CustomerInfoAND the attribute errors. The test in that version however only verified that the error was returned.When we converted
(Value, Error)callbacks to usingResult(#1387), I assumed this was an error. Because of that incomplete test, we didn't notice this wasn't the desired behavior.If the backend returns a 200, it's assumed that the errors aren't more important than the correct
CustomerInfo.The new implementation simply logs the attribute errors (which is now tested), and returns the
CustomerInfo: