Make OSA fields extendable, simplify naming

[tomalec]

This is an add-on to #39701

Submission Review Guidelines:

• I have followed the WooCommerce Contributing Guidelines and the WordPress Coding Standards.
• I have checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change.
• I have reviewed my code for security best practices.
• Following the above guidelines will result in quick merges and clear and detailed feedback when appropriate.

Changes proposed in this Pull Request:

• Use referrer & source_type field names consistently
  Remove the need to translate it back and forth.

• Make fields actually extendable
  using wc_order_attribution_tracking_fields.
  Propagate the field configuration to the client side as well.

  Disambiguate fields in variables and functions.

How to test the changes in this Pull Request:

Using the WooCommerce Testing Instructions Guide, include your detailed testing instructions:

1. Smoke test Add order attribution feature #39701 for regression
2. Add PHP snippet

add_filter(
    'wc_order_attribution_tracking_fields',
    function( $fields ) {
        $fields['new_field'] = 'first_add.fd';
        return $fields;
    }
);

4. Visit classic checkout,
   1. check that <input type="hidden" name="wc_order_attribution_new_field" value="" /> is in the source code.
   2. Check its value is correctly set document.querySelector('input[name="wc_order_attribution_new_field"]').value === sbjs.get.first_add.fd
5. Visit Block checkout, and open dev tools
   1. click "Place order"
   2. Check /checkout ajax request payload contains the new field
      
6. Check that order metadata contains the new property.
7. Review the code and check if all field-related names are understandable

Changelog entry

• Automatically create a changelog entry from the details below.

Significance

• Patch
• Minor
• Major

Type

• Fix - Fixes an existing bug
• Add - Adds functionality
• Update - Update existing functionality
• Dev - Development related task
• Tweak - A minor adjustment to the codebase
• Performance - Address performance issues
• Enhancement - Improvement to existing functionality

Message

Comment

[github-actions]

Hi @message-dimke,

Apart from reviewing the code changes, please make sure to review the testing instructions as well.

You can follow this guide to find out what good testing instructions should look like:
https://github.com/woocommerce/woocommerce/wiki/Writing-high-quality-testing-instructions

[github-actions]

Hi @layoutd, @woocommerce/ventures

Apart from reviewing the code changes, please make sure to review the testing instructions as well.

You can follow this guide to find out what good testing instructions should look like:
https://github.com/woocommerce/woocommerce/wiki/Writing-high-quality-testing-instructions

[github-actions]

Test Results Summary

Commit SHA: c53cc88

Test 🧪	Passed ✅	Failed 🚨	Broken 🚧	Skipped ⏭️	Unknown ❔	Total 📊	Duration ⏱️
API Tests	259	0	0	2	0	261	0m 37s
E2E Tests	258	0	0	3	0	261	14m 47s

---

To view the full API test report, click here.
To view the full E2E test report, click here.
To view all test reports, visit the WooCommerce Test Reports Dashboard.

[message-dimke]

Hey, @tomalec !

I am curious what should the value be, first_add.fd or sbjs.get.first_add.fd, or a date time?
The filter sets first_add.fd but in your test instructions for blocks the image shows date time and the actual tests show date time.

I am getting date time for both classical checkout and the block one.

Block:

Classic:

[tomalec]

I am curious what should the value be, first_add.fd or sbjs.get.first_add.fd, or a date time?

The value of the wc_order_attribution_tracking_fields item should be the property accessor within sbjs.get object: first_add.fd

then when processed in browser's runtime it should be resolved to the value of "sbjs.get.the.accessor.you.have.given". Which in the example should be the value of sbjs.get.first_add.fd. Which per sourcebuster docs is

Date and time of a visit. Format: yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss...

So, the results you see are correct.

[message-dimke]

LGTM! Thank you, @tomalec !

[layoutd]

These looks like they're working well! I tested with block and shortcode checkouts, and with several types of source types. The template version needs to be updated to match the current trunk version.

I was going to suggest we add metadata migration in another PR to allow sites that already have OA data work with these changes, but I realized that the OA feature already maps the type and url to source_type and referrer meta keys:

woocommerce/plugins/woocommerce/src/Internal/Traits/OrderAttributionMeta.php

Lines 154 to 170 in 2749ceb

	/**
	* Get the field name with the meta prefix.
	*
	* @param string $field The field name.
	*
	* @return string The prefixed field name.
	*/
	private function get_meta_prefixed_field( string $field ): string {
	// Map some of the fields to the correct meta name.
	if ( 'type' === $field ) {
	$field = 'source_type';
	} elseif ( 'url' === $field ) {
	$field = 'referrer';
	}
	return "_{$this->get_prefixed_field( $field )}";
	}

So that's one fewer thing to do!

[tomalec]

I'm marking it as high-impact as:

• It's a big PR (i.e. adds several changes in many files).
• Modifies critical functionality: Shopper | Checkout | Existing customer can place order
• Changes to WooCommerce hooks/actions/filters.

[alopezari]

Hi there! The E2E tests are failing here, I triggered a re-run just in case the failure was introduced by these changes. Will keep an eye on this.

Update: They passed 👍

[tomalec]

This PR is mostly with developer-facing tweaks. Also, may require some follow-up action to double-check if tracking- and meta- data migrate well.

As #43012 got full approval and analysis, while #41856 (its version based on this PR) didn't, I merged #43012, to deliver the customer-facing fix ASAP.

The above means, trunk received changes that conflicts with this branch, and requires some adjustments. I tried to cover them in the merge commit, non-trivial changes were made to e887ea3#diff-21bb08f041552efddbc9e2515315dddcedadedef055476d4fe4dd35962d5c25f

Maybe another pair of eyes could check if those changes didn't break anything?