Skip to content

fix: complete customer request parity slice#725

Open
jaeyunha wants to merge 4 commits into
stagingfrom
issue-556-parity-add-customer-requests-data
Open

fix: complete customer request parity slice#725
jaeyunha wants to merge 4 commits into
stagingfrom
issue-556-parity-add-customer-requests-data

Conversation

@jaeyunha

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary

  • adds Customer Request filter parameters to the OpenAPI contract and regenerated SDK types
  • adds regression coverage for issue/project customer filters
  • fixes migration ordering/schema compatibility for customer request integrations and restores broken integration UI merge output

Validation

  • make:migrations
  • make:openapi-strict
  • make:web-sdk-usage
  • pnpm --filter @namuh-eng/expn-sdk typecheck
  • pnpm --filter @exponential/web exec vitest run tests/customer-requests-view.test.tsx

Known blockers

  • make check is blocked in this worktree by missing web dependencies for legacy Better Auth/Drizzle/Stripe modules before it reaches later gates.
  • Go tests/gofmt are blocked because go/gofmt are not installed in this environment.

jaeyunha and others added 4 commits June 16, 2026 19:15
Union-merged router routes (customer-requests.csv + figma-sources refresh)
and openapi.gen.go params structs (GithubSetupCallback + IngestGitHubWebhook
+ IntercomOAuthCallback). openapi.yaml and SDK auto-merged cleanly.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…dd-customer-requests-data

# Conflicts:
#	apps/api/internal/projects/handler.go

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e8ebafbf09

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
-- First-class customer request entities and links to product work.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Badge Keep existing migration filenames unchanged

Adding the new customer-request migration at 0011 required this commit to rename previously committed migrations such as 0011_agent_runs.sql to 0017_agent_runs.sql. The migration runner records applied migrations by filename, and packages/proto/migrations/README.md explicitly says not to rename applied migrations, so any environment that has already run the old filenames will treat the renamed files as brand-new migrations and re-run them on deploy. Use the next unused filename for this new migration and leave the existing migration filenames intact.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Comment on lines +992 to +994
<SidebarLink
href="/customers"
label="Customers"

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Register customers as a workspace route

This link is intended to open the new workspace customer UI, but withWorkspaceSlug only prefixes paths whose first segment is in appRoutePrefixes, and customers is still only treated as a public route. As a result, clicking the new Customers sidebar entry in a workspace sends users to /customers (the marketing page) instead of /{workspaceSlug}/customers; the same applies to customer detail links built with /customers/.... Add the customer route to the workspace route handling so these links stay scoped to the active workspace.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@jaeyunha

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Controller disposition for current head e8ebafb: validation-blocked / rebase required; do not merge as-is.

Evidence:

  • PR fix: complete customer request parity slice #725 targets staging but does not contain current origin/staging; GitHub reports mergeable=CONFLICTING and no CI checks are present.
  • Local merge simulation shows conflicts, including integration settings/tests, generated OpenAPI/SDK, and migration ordering.
  • Diff includes migration renames (0010_*/0011_agent_runs00120017), which violates repo migration rules for already-applied migrations and must be replaced with forward-only migrations.
  • Worktree still has dirty local residue (.env.1password typechange, untracked package-lock.json), so it is not a clean validation source.
  • PR body focused checks are useful, but broad make check/Go gates were not completed.

Required before merge: port only the unlanded customer-request parity delta onto current origin/staging, restore existing migration filenames, add only forward migrations, remove local dirty residue, regenerate OpenAPI/SDK/stubs, then rerun focused customer API/web/SDK gates plus broader repo gates as far as environment allows.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant