-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 72
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
GET Privacy Experience Meta Endpoint #4328
GET Privacy Experience Meta Endpoint #4328
Conversation
…gion, component, and meta info in the response. Only TCF Experiences return any meaningful content at this point.
Passing run #4821 ↗︎
Details:
Review all test suite changes for PR #4328 ↗︎ |
…ew AC enabled tag to account for the differences between what is returned in the meta object when AC is enabled versus not enabled
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4328 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.83% 87.82% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 334 334
Lines 21079 21113 +34
Branches 2742 2748 +6
==========================================
+ Hits 18515 18543 +28
- Misses 2099 2101 +2
- Partials 465 469 +4
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@pattisdr nice, this looks good, and i think you'd be good to merge it as is!
just to raise the question - what would you think of moving this endpoint over to fidesplus? it's not a priority, so if you need/want to get this in as quick as possible, then you can ignore for now. but it seems like a relatively straightforward "wrapping" of underlying functionality that could possibly be moved over without serious rework required?
component: Optional[ComponentType] = None, | ||
request: Request, # required for rate limiting | ||
response: Response, # required for rate limiting | ||
) -> AbstractPage[PrivacyExperienceMetaResponse]: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: i could be wrong, but isn't the return type annotation here technically AbstractPage[PrivacyExperience]
? and then the response_model
would be responsible for eliminating in the API response any additional fields on the returned PrivacyExperience
that aren't part of the PrivacyExperienceMetaResponse
model/schema?
it's a bit academic, and i may be wrong in understanding the functionality/intention! but i was scratching my head for a few seconds trying to reconcile the return type annotation and the objects actually being returned in the function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for catching, it should be PrivacyExperience, this was leftover from when I was still toying with it being just PrivacyExperienceMetaResponse and not wrapped within the PrivacyExperience, but then I thought this should truly be a subset of the PrivacyExperience endpoint contents.
…5_PROD-1236 # Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md
Discussed - will merge and look into moving later - |
Closes https://github.com/ethyca/fidesplus/issues/1179
Description Of Changes
Add a new GET Privacy Experience Meta endpoint that just returns the meta object for Experiences. Content is really only built for TCF Experiences. If non-TCF Experiences are queried, these objects just have null for the experience meta objects for now. In the future, we could look into building a version hash for experiences with notices too.
Code Changes
Added new endpoint:
Relevant query params are:
Steps to Confirm
Pre-Merge Checklist
CHANGELOG.md