Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Payment flows APIs #275

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

stouretski-fb
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull Request Description

Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change.

Fixes (link to the issue here)

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Chore / Documentation
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

  • Locally tested against Fireblocks API

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
  • I have added corresponding labels to the PR

@github-actions github-actions bot added the enhancement New feature or request label May 1, 2024
@stouretski-fb stouretski-fb force-pushed the PIK-4658-payment-flows branch 2 times, most recently from 8ef1f03 to e35bf7d Compare May 1, 2024 15:07
@YoavBZ YoavBZ changed the title PIK-4658-Add Payment flows APIs Add Payment flows APIs May 1, 2024
* Execute payment workflow
* @param workflowExeuctionId
*/
public async executePaymentFlow(workflowExeuctionId: string): Promise<Payments.WorkflowExecution> {
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just to keep the same pattern, this is the only endpoint with the word Flow instead of Workflow.
I guess it came from our code but maybe it's better to change it here.

* Format: uuid
* @description The related workflow id that executes the failure handling
*/
workflowExecutionId?: string;
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

the new structure:

    execution?: {
        executionId: string;
        status: WorkflowExecutionStatus;
    };

Comment on lines +12 to +14
export interface AnyAdditionalPropertiesSchema {
[key: string]: unknown;
}
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

that's fine.
since we need to allow Record<string, unknown> values, in the openapi the way to do that is by a schema of an object with additionalProperties: { }.
This is the reason for this weird interface.
We can change here every usage of this interface to the actual type, but in my opinion we can leave it like that for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants