feat: adding clevertap segment support #1822
Conversation
shrouti1507
requested review from
lvrach,
cisse21,
debanjan97,
am6010,
ssbeefeater,
ruchiramoitra,
ItsSudip,
sandeepdsvs,
krishna2020 and
1abhishekpandey
as code owners
WalkthroughA series of new JSON configuration and schema files have been added for the "CLEVERTAP_SEGMENT" destination. These include a main configuration file detailing connection settings and consent management, a schema for validating configuration structures, and a user interface configuration. Additionally, test configurations for validating consent management settings across multiple platforms have been introduced. The changes establish a structured framework for managing and validating configurations related to the CleverTap integration. Changes
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1822 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 53 53
Branches 7 7
=========================================
Hits 53 53 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/schema.json (2)
65-98: Standardize consent provider configurationsThe
oneTrustCookieCategoriesandketchConsentPurposessections have similar structures but different validation rules. Consider:
- Standardizing the validation requirements
- Adding required field constraints
- Enforcing minimum array items
Consider applying these improvements:
"oneTrustCookieCategories": { "type": "object", "properties": { "warehouse": { "type": "array", + "minItems": 1, "items": { "type": "object", "properties": { "oneTrustCookieCategory": { "type": "string", "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{0,100})$" } }, + "required": ["oneTrustCookieCategory"] } } }, + "required": ["warehouse"] },Apply similar changes to
ketchConsentPurposessection.
2-100: Improve schema maintainability and strictnessConsider these schema-wide improvements:
- Prevent additional properties to ensure strict validation
- Define common patterns as reusable definitions
- Add schema description and examples
Consider applying these enhancements:
"configSchema": { "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#", + "description": "Configuration schema for CleverTap segment destination", "type": "object", + "additionalProperties": false, + "definitions": { + "envVarPattern": { + "type": "string", + "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{0,100})$" + } + }, "properties": { "appKey": { - "type": "string", - "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" + "$ref": "#/definitions/envVarPattern" },test/data/validation/destinations/clevertap_segment.json (3)
1-11: Add test title for better clarityThe first test case lacks a descriptive title. Consider adding a
testTitlefield to clearly indicate that this is testing the minimal valid configuration.{ + "testTitle": "Should accept minimal valid configuration", "config": { "appKey": "dfregth",
128-160: Consider adding more test coverage for consent managementThe multiple consent providers test case could be enhanced by:
- Adding validation for empty consents array in the Ketch provider
- Including a test case for the 'and' resolution strategy
- Testing the interaction between different providers' consent states
161-230: Add test cases for additional error scenariosConsider adding test cases for:
- Invalid consent format or structure
- Duplicate provider configurations
- Mixed case provider names (e.g., "OneTrust" vs "oneTrust")
- Invalid environment variable references
This will ensure robust validation of the configuration schema.
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/ui-config.json (3)
20-23: Document the regex pattern requirementsThe regex pattern
(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$is complex and would benefit from documentation explaining the accepted formats:
- Template variables:
{{...||...}}- Environment variables:
env.VARIABLE- Direct values: Up to 100 characters
79-90: Refactor duplicate feature flag conditionsThe feature flag prerequisites are duplicated in both OneTrust and Ketch sections. Consider extracting these into a shared configuration to improve maintainability.
{ + "commonPreRequisites": { + "featureFlags": [ + { + "configKey": "AMP_enable-gcm", + "value": false + }, + { + "configKey": "AMP_enable-gcm" + } + ], + "featureFlagsCondition": "or" + }, "consentSettingsTemplate": { // ... other config ... "fields": [ { // ... OneTrust config ... - "preRequisites": { - "featureFlags": [ - { - "configKey": "AMP_enable-gcm", - "value": false - }, - { - "configKey": "AMP_enable-gcm" - } - ], - "featureFlagsCondition": "or" - } + "preRequisites": "$ref: #/commonPreRequisites" }, { // ... Ketch config ... - "preRequisites": { - "featureFlags": [ - { - "configKey": "AMP_enable-gcm", - "value": false - }, - { - "configKey": "AMP_enable-gcm" - } - ], - "featureFlagsCondition": "or" - } + "preRequisites": "$ref: #/commonPreRequisites" } ] } }Also applies to: 104-115
170-171: Fix inconsistent apostrophe usageChange "ID's" to "IDs" for consistency with other occurrences in the file.
- "label": "Enter consent category ID's", + "label": "Enter consent category IDs",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/db-config.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/schema.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/ui-config.json(1 hunks)test/data/validation/destinations/clevertap_segment.json(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/db-config.json
🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/schema.json (1)
1-101: Verify schema against CleverTap's API requirements
Please ensure that the schema aligns with CleverTap's API requirements, particularly:
- Field naming conventions
- Required vs optional fields
- Value constraints and limitations
✅ Verification successful
Schema aligns with CleverTap's API requirements
The schema validation is correct based on the test data which demonstrates:
- Required fields
appKeyandaccessTokenare properly enforced - Pattern validation for string fields limits to 100 characters
- Proper structure for consent management with supported providers (custom, ketch, oneTrust)
- Correct validation of resolution strategies for custom consent provider
- Proper handling of environment variables and template strings
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for CleverTap integration tests or examples in the codebase
rg -g '!node_modules' -g '*.{json,js,ts}' -i 'clevertap.*test|test.*clevertap'
# Look for existing CleverTap configurations
fd -g '*clevertap*.json' -E 'node_modules'
Length of output: 229
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check test data for CleverTap configuration examples
cat test/data/validation/destinations/clevertap_segment.json test/data/validation/destinations/clevertap.json
# Search for CleverTap API-related code or documentation
rg -g '!node_modules' -g '!*.test.*' -g '*.{js,ts}' -i 'clevertap.*api|api.*clevertap' -A 5
# Look for any CleverTap transformation logic
ast-grep --pattern 'function $FUNC($$$) {
$$$
clevertap
$$$
}'
Length of output: 17013
test/data/validation/destinations/clevertap_segment.json (2)
12-127: Verify template expression compatibility and add documentation
A few suggestions to improve the platform-specific consent configurations:
- The template expression uses single quotes which might cause issues in some environments:
- "oneTrustCookieCategory": "{{ event.properties.prop1 || 'val' }}"
+ "oneTrustCookieCategory": "{{ event.properties.prop1 || \"val\" }}"-
Empty arrays for Unity and Cordova platforms should be documented to explain if this is intentional.
-
Consider extracting duplicate platform configurations into shared test fixtures to improve maintainability.
4-5: Ensure test credentials are clearly marked as dummy values
The test file uses dummy values for appKey and accessToken. Consider:
- Adding a comment to explicitly indicate these are test values
- Using more obvious dummy values (e.g., "DUMMY_APP_KEY", "DUMMY_ACCESS_TOKEN")
Also applies to: 131-132
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the content of some of these test files to verify if they contain real credentials or properly marked test values.
Let me check the specific file in question to see if there are any comments or patterns around the credentials.
Test credentials should be more clearly marked as dummy values
Looking at the test file content, the credentials are clearly non-real test values ("dfregth", "345fghyj"), but they could be made more explicit:
- Replace "dfregth" with "DUMMY_APP_KEY"
- Replace "345fghyj" with "DUMMY_ACCESS_TOKEN"
- Add a comment at the top of the file indicating these are test credentials
The current values, while obviously fake, could be made more self-documenting to prevent any confusion for new contributors.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential real credentials in test files
rg -l '[A-Za-z0-9]{32,}' --type json test/
Length of output: 11642
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Sample a few test files to check credential patterns and comments
for file in test/data/validation/destinations/{clevertap,facebook_pixel,google_adwords_enhanced_conversions,salesforce}.json; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg -A 2 -B 2 '(key|token|secret|password|credential|apiKey)' "$file" || true
done
Length of output: 4789
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the specific clevertap_segment.json file
cat test/data/validation/destinations/clevertap_segment.json
Length of output: 5123
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/ui-config.json (3)
1-194: Security review approved
The configuration properly handles sensitive information:
- Sensitive fields are correctly marked as secret
- Input validation is in place for all fields
- Consent management structure follows best practices
182-189: Document feature flag behavior
The feature flag prerequisite for the dynamic custom form has different conditions compared to the individual provider sections. Consider adding a note explaining why AMP_enable-gcm needs to be true here but has different logic elsewhere.
50-51: Empty fields array in connection mode section
The connection mode section has an empty fields array. Is this intentional? If not, consider adding relevant connection mode options.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can see that having an empty fields array in the connection mode section is actually a common pattern across many destination configurations in the codebase. This appears to be the standard implementation when no specific connection mode fields are needed, as evidenced by similar empty fields arrays in destinations like LinkedIn Ads, Zoho, X Audience, Wunderkind, and many others.
Empty fields array is intentional for connection mode section
The empty fields array is the expected configuration when no additional connection mode options are required. This is consistent with the destination's configuration pattern.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if other destinations have connection mode fields defined
rg -l '"connection mode"' src/configurations/destinations/
Length of output: 60
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for any fields array in the destination configs and their structure
rg -U --multiline '"fields": \[.*?\]' -A 5 src/configurations/destinations/
Length of output: 55540
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's specifically look at the clevertap_segment config file
cat src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/ui-config.json
Length of output: 6228
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check other destination configs for similar patterns
fd . src/configurations/destinations/ -e json -x cat {}
Length of output: 114083
| "appKey": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" | ||
| }, | ||
| "accessToken": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mark accessToken as sensitive and consider additional validation
The accessToken field should be marked as sensitive to ensure proper handling of credentials. Consider adding:
- The
secret: trueproperty for the accessToken field - Additional pattern validation for direct values to enforce minimum security requirements
Apply this diff to enhance security:
"accessToken": {
"type": "string",
+ "secret": true,
"pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$"
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| "appKey": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" | |
| }, | |
| "accessToken": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" | |
| }, | |
| "appKey": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" | |
| }, | |
| "accessToken": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "secret": true, | |
| "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{1,100})$" | |
| }, |
| "consentManagement": { | ||
| "type": "object", | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "warehouse": { | ||
| "type": "array", | ||
| "items": { | ||
| "type": "object", | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "provider": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "enum": ["custom", "ketch", "oneTrust"], | ||
| "default": "oneTrust" | ||
| }, | ||
| "consents": { | ||
| "type": "array", | ||
| "items": { | ||
| "type": "object", | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "consent": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{0,100})$" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "allOf": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "if": { | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "provider": { | ||
| "const": "custom" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "required": ["provider"] | ||
| }, | ||
| "then": { | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "resolutionStrategy": { | ||
| "type": "string", | ||
| "enum": ["and", "or"] | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "required": ["resolutionStrategy"] | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance consent management validation rules
The consent management structure could be improved with additional validation rules:
- Missing
requiredfields at the root level - No minimum items validation for arrays
- No validation for empty consent arrays
Consider applying these enhancements:
"consentManagement": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"warehouse": {
"type": "array",
+ "minItems": 1,
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"provider": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["custom", "ketch", "oneTrust"],
"default": "oneTrust"
},
"consents": {
"type": "array",
+ "minItems": 1,
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"consent": {
"type": "string",
"pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{0,100})$"
}
},
+ "required": ["consent"]
}
}
},
+ "required": ["provider", "consents"]
}
}
},
+ "required": ["warehouse"]
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| "consentManagement": { | |
| "type": "object", | |
| "properties": { | |
| "warehouse": { | |
| "type": "array", | |
| "items": { | |
| "type": "object", | |
| "properties": { | |
| "provider": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "enum": ["custom", "ketch", "oneTrust"], | |
| "default": "oneTrust" | |
| }, | |
| "consents": { | |
| "type": "array", | |
| "items": { | |
| "type": "object", | |
| "properties": { | |
| "consent": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{0,100})$" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "allOf": [ | |
| { | |
| "if": { | |
| "properties": { | |
| "provider": { | |
| "const": "custom" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "required": ["provider"] | |
| }, | |
| "then": { | |
| "properties": { | |
| "resolutionStrategy": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "enum": ["and", "or"] | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "required": ["resolutionStrategy"] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "consentManagement": { | |
| "type": "object", | |
| "properties": { | |
| "warehouse": { | |
| "type": "array", | |
| "minItems": 1, | |
| "items": { | |
| "type": "object", | |
| "properties": { | |
| "provider": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "enum": ["custom", "ketch", "oneTrust"], | |
| "default": "oneTrust" | |
| }, | |
| "consents": { | |
| "type": "array", | |
| "minItems": 1, | |
| "items": { | |
| "type": "object", | |
| "properties": { | |
| "consent": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{0,100})$" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "required": ["consent"] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "required": ["provider", "consents"], | |
| "allOf": [ | |
| { | |
| "if": { | |
| "properties": { | |
| "provider": { | |
| "const": "custom" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "required": ["provider"] | |
| }, | |
| "then": { | |
| "properties": { | |
| "resolutionStrategy": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "enum": ["and", "or"] | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "required": ["resolutionStrategy"] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "required": ["warehouse"] | |
| }, |
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/db-config.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/schema.json (2)
71-87: Add required field validation for OneTrust cookie categoriesConsider adding required field validation to ensure
oneTrustCookieCategoryis provided when the object is present."oneTrustCookieCategories": { "type": "object", "properties": { "warehouse": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "object", "properties": { "oneTrustCookieCategory": { "type": "string", "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{0,100})$" } }, + "required": ["oneTrustCookieCategory"] } } } },
88-104: Add required field validation for Ketch consent purposesConsider adding required field validation to ensure
purposeis provided when the object is present."ketchConsentPurposes": { "type": "object", "properties": { "warehouse": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "object", "properties": { "purpose": { "type": "string", "pattern": "(^\\{\\{.*\\|\\|(.*)\\}\\}$)|(^env[.].+)|^(.{0,100})$" } }, + "required": ["purpose"] } } } }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/db-config.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/schema.json(1 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/ui-config.json(1 hunks)test/data/validation/destinations/clevertap_segment.json(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- test/data/validation/destinations/clevertap_segment.json
- src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/db-config.json
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/schema.json (3)
1-11: LGTM! Root schema configuration is well-structured.
The schema correctly defines required fields and region enumeration matches CleverTap's available regions.
12-19: Mark accessToken as sensitive and consider additional validation
The accessToken field should be marked as sensitive to ensure proper handling of credentials.
20-70: Enhance consent management validation rules
The consent management structure could be improved with additional validation rules.
src/configurations/destinations/clevertap_segment/ui-config.json (4)
1-89: LGTM! Base template configuration is well-structured.
The connection settings are properly configured with appropriate security measures and validation.
95-148: LGTM! Consent settings template is comprehensive.
The configuration properly handles both OneTrust and Ketch consent management with appropriate feature flag controls.
149-222: LGTM! Dynamic custom form configuration is well-implemented.
The form properly handles consent management configuration with appropriate validation and conditional fields.
90-94: Verify if SDK template configuration is intentionally empty
The SDK template section has no fields and is marked as "not visible in the ui". Please verify if this is intentional or if SDK-specific configuration will be added later.
✅ Verification successful
Empty SDK template configuration is consistent with other destinations
The empty SDK template configuration with "not visible in the ui" note appears to be intentional, as other major destinations (Facebook Pixel, GA4, Braze) either have null or empty SDK template sections. This is likely a standard pattern for destinations that don't require SDK-specific configurations in the UI.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if other destinations have SDK template configurations
rg -l '"sdkTemplate":\s*{[^}]+fields":\s*\[[^\]]+\]' src/configurations/destinations/
Length of output: 232
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if other destinations have SDK template configurations with non-empty fields
rg --json -g 'ui-config.json' '"sdkTemplate"' src/configurations/destinations/ | jq -r '.data.path'
# Get content of SDK template sections from other destinations
rg -U --multiline '"sdkTemplate"[\s\S]*?}(?=,|\s*})' src/configurations/destinations/
Length of output: 14599
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check content of a few sample destination configs to understand the pattern
cat src/configurations/destinations/facebook_pixel/ui-config.json | jq '.sdkTemplate'
cat src/configurations/destinations/ga4/ui-config.json | jq '.sdkTemplate'
cat src/configurations/destinations/braze/ui-config.json | jq '.sdkTemplate'
Length of output: 252
Co-authored-by: Sandeep Digumarty <sandeepdsvs@gmail.com>
| "oneTrustCookieCategories", | ||
| "ketchConsentPurposes", | ||
| "consentManagement" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you confirm if consent management fields apply to this destination?
| @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you please add appropriate note to all the fields instead of leaving it blank
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Write a brief explainer on your code changes.
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-2765
Please explain the objectives of your changes below
Put down any required details on the broader aspect of your changes. If there are any dependent changes, mandatorily mention them here
Any changes to existing capabilities/behaviour, mention the reason & what are the changes ?
N/A
Any new dependencies introduced with this change?
N/A
Any new checks got introduced or modified in test suites. Please explain the changes.
N/A
Developer checklist
My code follows the style guidelines of this project
No breaking changes are being introduced.
All related docs linked with the PR?
All changes manually tested?
Any documentation changes needed with this change?
I have executed schemaGenerator tests and updated schema if needed
Are sensitive fields marked as secret in definition config?
My test cases and placeholders use only masked/sample values for sensitive fields
Is the PR limited to 10 file changes & one task?
Reviewer checklist
Is the type of change in the PR title appropriate as per the changes?
Verified that there are no credentials or confidential data exposed with the changes.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests