Skip to content
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

feat(custom_agg): Whitelist custom_properties in charge properties #1877

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 22, 2024

Conversation

vincent-pochet
Copy link
Collaborator

Context

Some of our customers have express a need for aggregation and charge models that does not fit into the current logic in place in Lago, like for example having a single aggregation for 2 different properties, but make the price per unit changing based on the position of the event.

This feature aims to propose a way to build custom aggregation logic for specific cases.

Description

This PR adds the whitelisting logic for custom_properties in the charge#properties object and updates the GraphQL type to expose this field

@vincent-pochet vincent-pochet merged commit 4db407b into main Apr 22, 2024
6 checks passed
@vincent-pochet vincent-pochet deleted the feat-custom-agg-graphql branch April 22, 2024 09:24
drejc pushed a commit to fliqa-io/lago-api that referenced this pull request May 15, 2024
…etlago#1877)

## Context

Some of our customers have express a need for aggregation and charge
models that does not fit into the current logic in place in Lago, like
for example having a single aggregation for 2 different properties, but
make the price per unit changing based on the position of the event.

This feature aims to propose a way to build custom aggregation logic for
specific cases.

## Description

This PR adds the whitelisting logic for `custom_properties` in the
`charge#properties` object and updates the GraphQL type to expose this
field
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.

None yet

2 participants