Preserve Workbench business rule payloads for clearer validation errors#8048
Preserve Workbench business rule payloads for clearer validation errors#8048acwhite211 wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (5)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Fixes #8045
Improve Workbench handling of back-end business rule validation errors. The back-end now preserves structured
BusinessRuleExceptionpayloads inFailedBusinessRuleupload results instead of stringifying and discarding them. The Workbench front-end uses those payloads to show uniqueness-rule failures and appends the conflicting record IDs when available. This makes duplicate catalog number errors clearer and avoids exposing raw Python exception tuples in validation tooltips.Checklist
self-explanatory (or properly documented)
Testing instructions
Collectionobject must have unique catalognumber in collection.Conflicting record IDs: 3347460.