[CRYSTAL-368]Enforce cov2 limits in requirment validations #383

zendesk-punavwalke · 2025-08-11T06:13:04Z

💐

/cc @zendesk/wattle

Description

Note : Translations are already merged with main.

The PR implements validation limits on Custom Objects V2 requirements in ZAS

Custom Objects V2 requirements = Custom Objects v2 + custom object fields +custom object triggers

Requirement structure with required fields:

{
  "custom_objects_v2": {
    "objects": [
      {
        "key": "apartment",
        "title": "Apartment",
        "title_pluralized": "Apartments",
        "include_in_list_view": true
      }
    ],
    "object_fields": [
      {
        "key": "price",
        "title": "Price",
        "type": "decimal",
        "object_key": "apartment"
      }
    ],
    "object_triggers": [
      {
        "title": "Welcome Trigger",
        "object_key": "apartment",
        "conditions": {
          "all": [],
          "any": [
            {"field": "priority", "operator": "is", "value": "urgent"},
            {"field": "type", "operator": "is", "value": "incident"}
          ]
        },
        "actions": [
          {"field": "assignee_id", "value": "123456789"}
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}

New Changes Introduced

Added new resource type custom_objects_v2 as a valid type in requirement.json
Added new validation module: CustomObjectsV2
1. Purpose: Validates limits and schema requirements for Custom Objects V2
2. Hard limits are enforced based on existing account settings limits & product requirements
3. Validates excessive limits in custom_objects_v2 requirements and schema for custom objects, fields & triggers

Validation Limits Enforced

Object Limits

Maximum 50 custom objects per account
Maximum 10 fields per custom object
Maximum 20 triggers per custom object

Field Limits

Maximum 5 dropdown fields per object
Maximum 5 multiselect fields per object
Maximum 10 options per dropdown/multiselect field
Maximum 20 conditions in relationship filters

Trigger Limits

Maximum 50 conditions per trigger (combined all + any)
Maximum 25 actions per trigger

Payload Size Limits

Maximum 1MB total payload size

Validation Flow

Structural validation - Ensures proper JSON structure
Payload size validation - Enforces 1MB limit (early return if exceeded)
Limits validation - Enforces count-based limits
Schema validation - Validates required fields and structure

References

JIRA

RFC

Before merging this PR

Fill out the Risks section
Think about performance and security issues

Risks

[RUNTIME] Can this change affect apps rendering for a user?
No, it cannot affect apps rendering for user because code changes in this PR are not yet used for app validations. We'll uncomment the once translations for validation errors are available.
[HIGH | medium | low] What features does this touch?
medium: Right now, it does not touch any existing feature. We are introducing a new resource_type which is not yet used in ZAM or any of the existing apps.

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/requirements.rb

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

digesh-parecha · 2025-08-20T02:40:51Z

I haven't added these comments everywhere; they apply to every place where the scenario matches.
#383 (comment)
#383 (comment)

digesh-parecha · 2025-08-20T02:41:12Z

Could you please include the final requirements structure in the description including all the required keys? It would be very helpful during the review process.

mmassaki

Nice work! I'm still reviewing the PR and should be adding more comments later.

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/requirements.rb

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

config/locales/translations/zendesk_apps_support.yml

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

zendesk-punavwalke · 2025-08-20T05:30:13Z

@digesh-parecha @mmassaki Added final requirements structure in the description including all the required keys. And I did found the missing validations for required keys in triggers, will add those in next commit.

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

digesh-parecha · 2025-09-08T17:55:08Z

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

+          object_fields = requirements[SCHEMA_KEYS[:object_fields]]
+          object_triggers = requirements[SCHEMA_KEYS[:object_triggers]]
+
+          if all_collections_empty_or_nil?(objects, object_fields, object_triggers)


Is there any dependency among objects, object_fields, and object_triggers?

No dependency in validation logic. Each collection validates independently.

fields/triggers reference object_key but we don't enforce those validations here (will be done in classic). This service only handles COV2 limits, structural type and payload size validation.

fields/triggers reference object_key but we don't enforce those validations here.

Curious to know When will this validation be performed?

Will it allow submitting the app when there are mismatched keys between the object and the object_key in object_fields?

Yes, current code will allow submitting the object_fields and object_triggers with invalid object references.
By invalid, I mean object_keys which does not exists in objects array.

But I will address it in next PR(Draft)

This is because it has new translation key which would take another week to be translated,hence will address this issue in next PR once translations are available.

digesh-parecha · 2025-09-08T18:31:21Z

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

+          end
+
+          [
+            validate_collection_is_array(objects, :invalid_objects_structure_in_cov2_requirements),


validate_collection_is_array and all_collections_empty_or_nil seem to do the same thing. Can we combine them into a single function?

They serve different purposes and can't be combined:

all_collections_empty_or_nil: returns early if all the arrays objects, fields, triggers are empty with correct error message because there is nothing to install

validate_collection_is_array: is for type safety of objects, fields, triggers array. It is crucial in cases below
where requirements contains only objects so we need to ensure its also an array.

As discussed, let's check the possibly to combine this two methods.

@digesh-parecha I want to clarify my earlier response which caused the confusion

all_collections_empty?: It catches the specific case where someone provides
{"objects":[], "object_fields":[], "object_triggers":[]} and returns an empty_cov2_requirements error because there's nothing meaningful to install

validate_collection_is_array: validates that each field is an array and raise error for string/number/etc.) but allows empty arrays [] to pass through because this is valid requirement: {"objects":[.....], "object_fields":[], "object_triggers":[]}

I prefer to keep these validations separate since they serve different purposes

digesh-parecha · 2025-09-09T06:52:14Z

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

+        def valid_conditions_structure?(conditions)
+          return false unless conditions.is_a?(Hash)
+
+          (conditions.key?('all') || conditions.key?('any')) &&


What is the purpose of the condition (conditions.key?('all') || conditions.key?('any'))?

It ensures either all or any key is present in conditions hash

then next line check is allorany` key is present in conditions hash then it must be an array

Implementation is changed now

digesh-parecha · 2025-09-09T07:07:51Z

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

+          return false unless conditions.is_a?(Hash)
+
+          (conditions.key?('all') || conditions.key?('any')) &&
+            CONDITION_KEYS.all? { |key| conditions[key].nil? || conditions[key].is_a?(Array) }


How about to simplify the entire condition like this?

Suggested change

CONDITION_KEYS.all? { |key| conditions[key].nil? || conditions[key].is_a?(Array) }

CONDITION_KEYS.any? { |key| conditions[key].is_a?(Array) }

If we use .any?, then a conditions hash like { "all" => [], "any" => "not_an_array" } would be considered valid, which is not correct

As discussed, See if it’s possible to have a single check that performs both validations.

Changed the implementation

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

config/locales/translations/zendesk_apps_support.yml

mmassaki · 2025-09-10T06:40:57Z

spec/validations/custom_objects_v2_spec.rb

+  let(:custom_objects_v2_requirements) { nil }
+  let(:errors) { described_class.call(custom_objects_v2_requirements) }
+
+  context 'when custom objects v2 requirements is not a hash' do


I'd recommend a more specific description to make the intent clear.

Suggested change

context 'when custom objects v2 requirements is not a hash' do

context 'when custom objects v2 requirements is an array' do

mmassaki · 2025-09-10T06:42:53Z

spec/validations/custom_objects_v2_spec.rb

+require 'json'
+
+describe ZendeskAppsSupport::Validations::CustomObjectsV2 do
+  let(:custom_objects_v2_requirements) { nil }


Do we have a test example for when custom_objects_v2_requirements is nil?

No, this is an invalid test CustomObjectsV2 will not receive a nil value

mmassaki · 2025-09-11T03:21:21Z

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb

+
+        # ========== OBJECTS VALIDATION ==========
+
+        def validate_objects_excessive_limit(objects = [])


Sorry, I was wrong this comment.

I realized default args in ruby are only used when the arg is not defined, which makes it redundant as this method is never called without it.

This also applies to other methods in this class.

Suggested change

def validate_objects_excessive_limit(objects = [])

def validate_objects_excessive_limit(objects)

…ation

…scenarios

vaibhavmdhoke reviewed Aug 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/requirements.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

zendesk-punavwalke force-pushed the zendesk-punavwalke/CRYSTAL-368-enforce-cov2-limits branch from d8fb91b to 5516c54 Compare August 16, 2025 12:43

zendesk-punavwalke changed the title ~~enforce cov2 limits in req validation~~ [CRYSTAL-368]Enforce cov2 limits in requirment validations Aug 16, 2025

zendesk-punavwalke marked this pull request as ready for review August 18, 2025 06:59

zendesk-punavwalke requested a review from a team as a code owner August 18, 2025 06:59

digesh-parecha reviewed Aug 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mmassaki reviewed Aug 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

lib/zendesk_apps_support/validations/custom_objects_v2.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

zendesk-punavwalke requested review from mmassaki and digesh-parecha August 26, 2025 03:15

enforce cov2 limits in req validation

2bbe4b5

zendesk-punavwalke force-pushed the zendesk-punavwalke/CRYSTAL-368-enforce-cov2-limits branch from 3d74473 to 2bbe4b5 Compare September 9, 2025 06:00

zendesk-punavwalke added 2 commits September 9, 2025 11:43

fix: translations

68e1eec

fix: translations

6a598a0

digesh-parecha reviewed Sep 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

zendesk-punavwalke added 4 commits September 9, 2025 14:22

fix:remove translations

bd92904

fix: review comments

cca3451

fix: review comments

7f31e63

fix: review comments

dce954b

zendesk-punavwalke requested a review from digesh-parecha September 9, 2025 12:24

fix: code smells

f5810dd

mmassaki reviewed Sep 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

zendesk-punavwalke added 4 commits September 11, 2025 11:11

feat: cov2 validations code architecture separation

51724ef

refactor: add specs for new cov2 sub classes and cleanup file organiz…

2c4adf4

…ation

fix: remove default values

50d8bee

fix: make cov2 service class handle invalid requirements

aa0074c

zendesk-punavwalke added 3 commits September 12, 2025 14:56

fix: disrepency

b0debf6

refactor: replace autoload with require_relative in CustomObjectsV2

e9a9cc5

feat: improve CustomObjectsV2 validation logic and add positive test …

5964037

…scenarios

	CONDITION_KEYS.all? { \|key\| conditions[key].nil? \|\| conditions[key].is_a?(Array) }
	CONDITION_KEYS.any? { \|key\| conditions[key].is_a?(Array) }

	context 'when custom objects v2 requirements is not a hash' do
	context 'when custom objects v2 requirements is an array' do


		# ========== OBJECTS VALIDATION ==========

		def validate_objects_excessive_limit(objects = [])

[CRYSTAL-368]Enforce cov2 limits in requirment validations #383

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[CRYSTAL-368]Enforce cov2 limits in requirment validations #383

Uh oh!

Conversation

zendesk-punavwalke commented Aug 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Validation Limits Enforced

Object Limits

Field Limits

Trigger Limits

Payload Size Limits

Validation Flow

References

Before merging this PR

Risks

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

digesh-parecha commented Aug 20, 2025

Uh oh!

digesh-parecha commented Aug 20, 2025

Uh oh!

mmassaki left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zendesk-punavwalke commented Aug 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zendesk-punavwalke commented Aug 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading