-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Activities of type Meeting impact the bookmark and stop extraction #20
Comments
If I open a PR against this issue, would it be accepted? This tap seems unmaintained. |
Why aren't we using the |
It looks like @cosimon tried to fix this: https://github.com/singer-io/tap-closeio/compare/fix/ignore-future-dated-activities I still think that keying on |
More digging. @cdlethem committed the change I'm suggesting to his/her fork. We could just pull request from that if the QA's been done... |
For what it's worth, I couldn't find a reason that activities used the |
Ha. Well the future meetings -- this is redundant in 99% of cases -- are what are killing me. It breaks the ETL. |
@cdlethem I was curious about this so looked at the paginated_sync() function. It looks like:
Is #2 correct? If so, it seems like (i) the README's rationale for not using date_created doesn't make sense, and (ii) you are right, in that we could just change that to any other field that exists in the response objects. Have I understood that correctly, that the tap is requesting all activities ever, even when doing an incremental sync for the last day? |
It's possible for an
activity
to be created when aMeeting
is set in CloseIO. Thatactivity
has adate_created
that is equal to the scheduled date of the meeting, which is likely in the future. These records also have astatus
ofupcoming
and asource
ofcalendar
.The Close API probably shouldn't work this way, but if that won't change, we need to update the tap to either use a different timestamp (there is a
date_updated
field that is probably better anyway) or special-case theseMeeting
activities to exclude them from either the sync or the bookmark calculation (which should be a simple comparison ofrecord
in the method here)cc @apbenn
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: