Skip to content

fix(datasync): add Dynamic Form response tables to VALID_TABLES - #175

Merged
snehar-nd merged 1 commit into
release-3.8.2from
vb/release-3.8.2-van
Aug 7, 2026
Merged

fix(datasync): add Dynamic Form response tables to VALID_TABLES#175
snehar-nd merged 1 commit into
release-3.8.2from
vb/release-3.8.2-van

Conversation

@vishwab1

@vishwab1 vishwab1 commented Aug 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

t_form_response, t_section_response, t_question_response hold actual per-beneficiary submitted counselling/contact-tracing answers and need to sync to central, same as every other beneficiary-data table. They were never registered here since the Dynamic Form module (V87) postdates this allowlist's last update - identical gap to the diagnostic-device tables fixed earlier.

The 7 form-definition/structure tables (t_dynamic_form, t_form_version, t_form_section, t_question_option, t_question_validation, t_option_condition, t_section_question) are deliberately NOT registered - they're seeded once at app startup, not per-van transactional data.

Companion fixes (not in this repo): FLW-API now stamps VanSerialNo on all 3 response tables (was previously only stamping VanID), and the van side needs these 3 tables registered in m_synctabledetail.

📋 Description

JIRA ID:

Please provide a summary of the change and the motivation behind it. Include relevant context and details.


✅ Type of Change

  • 🐞 Bug fix (non-breaking change which resolves an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • 🔥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • 🛠 Refactor (change that is neither a fix nor a new feature)
  • ⚙️ Config change (configuration file or build script updates)
  • 📚 Documentation (updates to docs or readme)
  • 🧪 Tests (adding new or updating existing tests)
  • 🎨 UI/UX (changes that affect the user interface)
  • 🚀 Performance (improves performance)
  • 🧹 Chore (miscellaneous changes that don't modify src or test files)

ℹ️ Additional Information

Please describe how the changes were tested, and include any relevant screenshots, logs, or other information that provides additional context.

t_form_response, t_section_response, t_question_response hold actual
per-beneficiary submitted counselling/contact-tracing answers and need to
sync to central, same as every other beneficiary-data table. They were
never registered here since the Dynamic Form module (V87) postdates this
allowlist's last update - identical gap to the diagnostic-device tables
fixed earlier.

The 7 form-definition/structure tables (t_dynamic_form, t_form_version,
t_form_section, t_question_option, t_question_validation,
t_option_condition, t_section_question) are deliberately NOT registered -
they're seeded once at app startup, not per-van transactional data.

Companion fixes (not in this repo): FLW-API now stamps VanSerialNo on all
3 response tables (was previously only stamping VanID), and the van side
needs these 3 tables registered in m_synctabledetail.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 4a93f873-64a4-4688-9622-7978b3de8d78

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • 🔍 Trigger review

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@sonarqubecloud

sonarqubecloud Bot commented Aug 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@vishwab1
vishwab1 requested a review from snehar-nd August 7, 2026 17:23
@snehar-nd
snehar-nd merged commit 6e70273 into release-3.8.2 Aug 7, 2026
5 checks passed
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.

2 participants