Conversation
Coverage report
Test suite run success3781 tests passing in 1449 suites. Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 8b9720e |
|
We detected some changes at Caution DO NOT create changesets for features which you do not wish to be included in the public changelog of the next CLI release. |
ff7c0de to
8b9720e
Compare
| const transformLocalToRemote = | ||
| spec.transformLocalToRemote ?? (spec.transformConfig ? resolveAppConfigTransform(spec.transformConfig) : undefined) | ||
| const transformRemoteToLocal = | ||
| spec.transformRemoteToLocal ?? resolveReverseAppConfigTransform(spec.schema, spec.transformConfig) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
transformRemoteToLocal is now always set even when transformConfig is omitted
createConfigExtensionSpecification now computes const transformRemoteToLocal = spec.transformRemoteToLocal ?? resolveReverseAppConfigTransform(spec.schema, spec.transformConfig) and resolveReverseAppConfigTransform returns a default reverse-transform when transformConfig is undefined. This means every config extension spec will have a reverse transform unless it explicitly sets transformRemoteToLocal: undefined (not really expressible) or bypasses the factory. Previously, transformConfig was required, so the behavior was explicit.
Why this is risky: callers relying on “no reverse transform” semantics may see keys dropped, content nested according to schema, or input mutation (see next comment), leading to confusing diffs or broken local config; and potentially omitting server fields if the transformed output is re-sent.
Scale: affects any configuration extension spec created without transformConfig (now allowed by types).
|
🤖 Code Review · #projects-dev-ai for questions ✅ Complete - 1 findings 📋 History✅ 1 findings |

WHY are these changes introduced?
Fixes #0000
WHAT is this pull request doing?
How to test your changes?
Post-release steps
Measuring impact
How do we know this change was effective? Please choose one:
Checklist