-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Naif/add-default-token-login-tracking. #671
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Naif/add-default-token-login-tracking. #671
Conversation
'event': 'login_flow_error', | ||
'properties': <String, dynamic>{ | ||
'app_id': appId, | ||
'login_provider': 'deafult_token', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what does this mean ? and it has a typo. default not deafult
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will be used when the user is automatically logged in using the saved token.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh I see, what it is considered as error ? login_flow_error
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
-
The thing is, I faced this issue when the default token belonged to an account to qa10 before it was rebuilt, after rebuilding, the app would automatically log in using the token of a
non-existent
account, and it would throw an error. -
When RudderStack tries to handle this error, it refuses to do so because of missing params,
login_provider
which is what type of log in was initiated, and thatdefault token
type was not being handled. -
Theoretically, this never happens on production, but still, developers will face it at least once every qa rebuild, and it makes sense to handle it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thank you for the explanation. Understood. Looks good to me. Just ensure this is clear to Reeja and the people who would be analysing the data.
please fix the title and update the PR. We should be able to marge aftewards. |
Clickup link:
Fixes issue: #
This PR contains the following changes:
Developers Note (Optional)
Pre-launch Checklist (For PR creator)
As a creator of this PR:
Reviewers
Pre-launch Checklist (For Reviewers)
As a reviewer I ensure that:
Pre-launch Checklist (For QA)
Pre-launch Checklist (For Maintainer)