Open
Conversation
Contributor
Greptile SummaryThis PR renames webhook event types to be more descriptive with domain prefixes (e.g.,
Before merging, update all references to webhook types across the OpenAPI spec and documentation, then run Confidence Score: 1/5
|
| Filename | Overview |
|---|---|
| openapi/components/schemas/webhooks/WebhookType.yaml | Webhook type enum values renamed for consistency, but breaks compatibility without updating examples and related schemas |
Last reviewed commit: f625355
![greptile-apps[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/867647?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Comment on lines
1
to
+9
| type: string | ||
| enum: | ||
| - INCOMING_PAYMENT | ||
| - OUTGOING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TRANSACTIONS_INCOMING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TRANSACTIONS_OUTGOING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TEST | ||
| - BULK_UPLOAD | ||
| - INVITATION_CLAIMED | ||
| - KYC_STATUS | ||
| - ACCOUNT_STATUS | ||
| - UMA_INVITATION_CLAIMED | ||
| - CUSTOMERS_KYC_UPDATE | ||
| - INTERNAL_ACCOUNTS_BALANCE_UPDATE |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The enum values have been renamed but the examples in webhook schema files still reference old names. This creates inconsistency:
openapi/components/schemas/webhooks/IncomingPaymentWebhook.yaml:12hasexample: INCOMING_PAYMENTopenapi/components/schemas/webhooks/OutgoingPaymentWebhook.yaml:12hasexample: OUTGOING_PAYMENTopenapi/components/schemas/webhooks/InvitationClaimedWebhook.yaml:11hasenum: [INVITATION_CLAIMED]
These must be updated to match the new enum values or the OpenAPI spec will be invalid.
Prompt To Fix With AI
This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: openapi/components/schemas/webhooks/WebhookType.yaml
Line: 1-9
Comment:
The enum values have been renamed but the examples in webhook schema files still reference old names. This creates inconsistency:
- `openapi/components/schemas/webhooks/IncomingPaymentWebhook.yaml:12` has `example: INCOMING_PAYMENT`
- `openapi/components/schemas/webhooks/OutgoingPaymentWebhook.yaml:12` has `example: OUTGOING_PAYMENT`
- `openapi/components/schemas/webhooks/InvitationClaimedWebhook.yaml:11` has `enum: [INVITATION_CLAIMED]`
These must be updated to match the new enum values or the OpenAPI spec will be invalid.
How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.
Comment on lines
1
to
+9
| type: string | ||
| enum: | ||
| - INCOMING_PAYMENT | ||
| - OUTGOING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TRANSACTIONS_INCOMING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TRANSACTIONS_OUTGOING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TEST | ||
| - BULK_UPLOAD | ||
| - INVITATION_CLAIMED | ||
| - KYC_STATUS | ||
| - ACCOUNT_STATUS | ||
| - UMA_INVITATION_CLAIMED | ||
| - CUSTOMERS_KYC_UPDATE | ||
| - INTERNAL_ACCOUNTS_BALANCE_UPDATE |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Webhook endpoint example payloads still use old type names. These files need updating:
openapi/webhooks/incoming-payment.yamllines 101, 127:type: INCOMING_PAYMENTopenapi/webhooks/outgoing-payment.yamllines 87, 122:type: OUTGOING_PAYMENTopenapi/webhooks/invitation-claimed.yamlline 73:type: INVITATION_CLAIMEDopenapi/webhooks/kyc-status.yamlline 61:type: KYC_STATUSopenapi/webhooks/account-status.yamlline 70:type: ACCOUNT_STATUS
After running make build, these will propagate to the bundled spec.
Prompt To Fix With AI
This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: openapi/components/schemas/webhooks/WebhookType.yaml
Line: 1-9
Comment:
Webhook endpoint example payloads still use old type names. These files need updating:
- `openapi/webhooks/incoming-payment.yaml` lines 101, 127: `type: INCOMING_PAYMENT`
- `openapi/webhooks/outgoing-payment.yaml` lines 87, 122: `type: OUTGOING_PAYMENT`
- `openapi/webhooks/invitation-claimed.yaml` line 73: `type: INVITATION_CLAIMED`
- `openapi/webhooks/kyc-status.yaml` line 61: `type: KYC_STATUS`
- `openapi/webhooks/account-status.yaml` line 70: `type: ACCOUNT_STATUS`
After running `make build`, these will propagate to the bundled spec.
How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.
Comment on lines
1
to
+9
| type: string | ||
| enum: | ||
| - INCOMING_PAYMENT | ||
| - OUTGOING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TRANSACTIONS_INCOMING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TRANSACTIONS_OUTGOING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TEST | ||
| - BULK_UPLOAD | ||
| - INVITATION_CLAIMED | ||
| - KYC_STATUS | ||
| - ACCOUNT_STATUS | ||
| - UMA_INVITATION_CLAIMED | ||
| - CUSTOMERS_KYC_UPDATE | ||
| - INTERNAL_ACCOUNTS_BALANCE_UPDATE |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Documentation in mintlify/ramps/platform-tools/webhooks.mdx still references old webhook type names (OUTGOING_PAYMENT, ACCOUNT_STATUS, KYC_STATUS) in code examples on lines 17, 41, 50, 66, 75, and 81. These need updating to match the new naming convention.
Prompt To Fix With AI
This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: openapi/components/schemas/webhooks/WebhookType.yaml
Line: 1-9
Comment:
Documentation in `mintlify/ramps/platform-tools/webhooks.mdx` still references old webhook type names (`OUTGOING_PAYMENT`, `ACCOUNT_STATUS`, `KYC_STATUS`) in code examples on lines 17, 41, 50, 66, 75, and 81. These need updating to match the new naming convention.
How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.
Comment on lines
1
to
+9
| type: string | ||
| enum: | ||
| - INCOMING_PAYMENT | ||
| - OUTGOING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TRANSACTIONS_INCOMING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TRANSACTIONS_OUTGOING_PAYMENT | ||
| - TEST | ||
| - BULK_UPLOAD | ||
| - INVITATION_CLAIMED | ||
| - KYC_STATUS | ||
| - ACCOUNT_STATUS | ||
| - UMA_INVITATION_CLAIMED | ||
| - CUSTOMERS_KYC_UPDATE | ||
| - INTERNAL_ACCOUNTS_BALANCE_UPDATE |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a breaking change for existing webhook consumers. Verify that backend services parsing the type field are updated to handle new names, and check if a migration path exists for existing webhook subscriptions.
Prompt To Fix With AI
This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: openapi/components/schemas/webhooks/WebhookType.yaml
Line: 1-9
Comment:
This is a breaking change for existing webhook consumers. Verify that backend services parsing the `type` field are updated to handle new names, and check if a migration path exists for existing webhook subscriptions.
How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
TL;DR
Updated webhook event type names to be more descriptive and consistent.
What changed?
INCOMING_PAYMENTtoTRANSACTIONS_INCOMING_PAYMENTOUTGOING_PAYMENTtoTRANSACTIONS_OUTGOING_PAYMENTINVITATION_CLAIMEDtoUMA_INVITATION_CLAIMEDKYC_STATUStoCUSTOMERS_KYC_UPDATEACCOUNT_STATUStoINTERNAL_ACCOUNTS_BALANCE_UPDATETESTandBULK_UPLOADunchangedHow to test?
Why make this change?
The new naming convention provides more context about which domain each webhook belongs to, making the API more intuitive and self-documenting. This improves developer experience by making it clearer what each webhook is used for and helps with organization as we add more webhook types in the future.