Skip to content

Use the adapter to get the email analytics provider #7

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

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: postmark-integration
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

andreascreten
Copy link
Member

Got some code for us? Awesome 🎊!

Please take a minute to explain the change you're making:

  • Why are you making it?
  • What does it do?
  • Why is this something Ghost users or developers need?

Please check your PR against these items:

  • I've read and followed the Contributor Guide
  • I've explained my change
  • I've written an automated test to prove my change works

We appreciate your contribution! 🙏

Copy link

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 13 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Files not reviewed (2)
  • ghost/core/package.json: Language not supported
  • ghost/email-analytics-provider-postmark/package.json: Language not supported
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

ghost/postmark-client/lib/PostmarkClient.js:316

  • The EmailAnalyticsProviderPostmark constructor has been refactored to only destructure {client, config} yet is still being passed a 'settings' property. Either update the constructor to include 'settings' if needed or remove it from the instantiation to ensure a consistent interface.
            settings: this.#settings

ghost/email-analytics-provider-postmark/test/provider-postmark.test.js:1

  • The removal of the EmailAnalyticsProviderPostmark test file may reduce test coverage for the new provider implementation. Consider adding tests to verify its behavior under the new adapter-based integration.
describe('EmailAnalyticsProviderPostmark', function () {});

@andreascreten andreascreten requested a review from Copilot April 10, 2025 09:03
Copy link

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot reviewed 11 out of 13 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Files not reviewed (2)
  • ghost/core/package.json: Language not supported
  • ghost/email-analytics-provider-postmark/package.json: Language not supported
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

ghost/postmark-client/lib/EmailAnalyticsProviderPostmark.js:15

  • It appears that the config key is still checking for 'bulkEmail:mailgun:tag' in the Postmark provider. Consider updating this to use a Postmark-specific key (e.g. 'bulkEmail:postmark:tag') if applicable.
if (config.get('bulkEmail:mailgun:tag')) {

nbayramberdiyev pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 25, 2025
- We keep seeing a flakey failure in the portal tests: 

```
FAIL
src/tests/SignupFlow.test.js > Signup > as paid member on single tier
site > with default settings on monthly plan

[2726](https://github.com/TryGhost/Ghost/actions/runs/15649953622/job/44093261730#step:7:2744)
TestingLibraryElementError: Found multiple elements with the text:
Limited early adopter pricing #7-1749888016395
```

- This is yet another attempt to fix it:

- Eliminates Race Conditions: Using objectId() instead of Date.now() +
Math.random() ensures each fixture gets a truly unique identifier
- Handles Expected UI Behavior: The test now correctly handles the fact
that benefits legitimately appear in multiple places in the UI
- More Robust Assertions: Using queryAllByText + waitFor makes the test
more resilient to timing issues
- Maintains Test Intent: The test still verifies that the benefit text
appears in the UI, just more flexibly
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