ref: Add plan family to package#219
Conversation
|
The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow ci / buf-checks (pull_request).
|
| enum PlanFamily { | ||
| PLAN_FAMILY_UNSPECIFIED = 0; | ||
| PLAN_FAMILY_DEVELOPER = 1; | ||
| PLAN_FAMILY_TEAM = 2; | ||
| PLAN_FAMILY_BUSINESS = 3; | ||
| PLAN_FAMILY_ENTERPRISE = 4; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this enum should actually be defined on the proto interface. What's the reasoning behind this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the user facing elements that reflect the plan family. Like the title of the subscription page (we aren't building that yet) or the line item on the invoice (that's why I came across this). I also considered adding something like string plan_title but that started to feel too much like server driven UI which tends to be over engineered. I could imagine many copy variants all driven by this family and didn't want to require updating the proto definition every time we found a new UI element driven by this. What do you think? Any other preferred way of handling it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would much rather put string plan_title on the package and let the package service decide how to deal with it rather than the proto. It's why I moved SKU definitions out of the protos and into the package service so we wouldn't have to update something in two places.
Also at the moment I don't think we're worrying about the checkout page so let's cross that bridge when we get there?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It shows on the invoice though, something like "Subscription to Team". I'm fine with adding it as a plan_title
noahsmartin
force-pushed
the
addPlanFamily
branch
from
edeb295 to
13329f1
Compare
2 participants
No description provided.