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

[STRATCONN-5449] Update GEC - userList action to common hashed function #2710

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

Conversation

rvadera12
Copy link
Contributor

@rvadera12 rvadera12 commented Jan 28, 2025

Goal is to use a Standard Function: commonHashedEmailValidation for email hashing. The only action that needs an updates is the addUserList action.

The commonHashedEmailValidation function will now be used in place of formatEmail for the userList action to ensure consistency and improve validation efficiency across email handling.This will not introduce any new functionality.

Testing

A unit test was added to verify the functionality of commonHashedEmailValidation and ensure that the hashed values are generated correctly.

Since this is for Engage, I was unable to run a full E2E test to verify the payload sent. However, I did test this locally, and everything appears to be functioning as expected.

formatEmail
Input: [email protected] Output (hashed): 87924606b4131a8aceeeae8868531fbb9712aaa07a5d3a756b26ce0f5d6ca674

commonHashedEmailValidation
Input: [email protected] Output (hashed): 87924606b4131a8aceeeae8868531fbb9712aaa07a5d3a756b26ce0f5d6ca674

formatEmail
Input: 87924606b4131a8aceeeae8868531fbb9712aaa07a5d3a756b26ce0f5d6ca674 Output : 87924606b4131a8aceeeae8868531fbb9712aaa07a5d3a756b26ce0f5d6ca674

commonHashedEmailValidation
Input: 87924606b4131a8aceeeae8868531fbb9712aaa07a5d3a756b26ce0f5d6ca674 Output: 87924606b4131a8aceeeae8868531fbb9712aaa07a5d3a756b26ce0f5d6ca674

Include any additional information about the testing you have completed to
ensure your changes behave as expected. For a speedy review, please check
any of the tasks you completed below during your testing.

  • Added unit tests for new functionality
  • Tested end-to-end using the local server
  • [If destination is already live] Tested for backward compatibility of destination. Note: New required fields are a breaking change.
  • [Segmenters] Tested in the staging environment
  • [Segmenters] [If applicable for this change] Tested for regression with Hadron.

@rvadera12 rvadera12 marked this pull request as ready for review January 29, 2025 02:04
@rvadera12 rvadera12 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 29, 2025 02:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants