Skip to content

Conversation

@AxelGes
Copy link
Contributor

@AxelGes AxelGes commented Feb 9, 2026

Explanation

During development of the quotes functionality in PR #7747, the widgetUrl field was mistakenly added to the nested quote.quote object when the API format was still being finalized. The API has since been corrected to use a top-level url field instead.

This PR removes the incorrect nested structure before the quotes feature is released.

Changes

  • Remove widgetUrl from the nested quote.quote object in the Quote type
  • Simplify getWidgetUrl() method to only check the top-level quote.url field
  • Update all test mocks to use the top-level url field instead of nested widgetUrl
  • Keep all provider metadata types (ProviderType, ProviderFeatures, etc.) that were correctly added

References

Related to PR #7747


Note

Low Risk
Low risk type/shape cleanup: changes the Quote contract and widget URL extraction to use quote.url, so downstream consumers must align but behavior is straightforward and covered by updated tests.

Overview
Fixes the quotes payload shape by removing the nested quote.quote.widgetUrl field and standardizing on a top-level Quote.url.

Updates RampsController.getWidgetUrl() to read quote.url only, adjusts quote-related test fixtures accordingly, and expands the exported provider metadata typings (ProviderType, ProviderFeatures, etc.) via RampsService/index.ts so callers can consume provider capability data embedded in quotes.

Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit d2ebbf3. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.

The widgetUrl field was mistakenly added to the nested quote.quote object
during initial development when the API format was incorrect. The API has
been fixed to use a top-level url field instead.

Changes:
- Remove widgetUrl from nested quote object in Quote type
- Simplify getWidgetUrl() to only check quote.url field
- Update all tests to use top-level url field
- Keep provider metadata types (providerInfo, features) added for API enhancement
@AxelGes AxelGes requested a review from a team as a code owner February 9, 2026 22:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant