Thanks for the PR @jkaho . I'll schedule time to review.

Hi @jkaho I had a quick scan. Did you mean to include the file at this location? packages/browser-destinations/destinations/algolia-plugins/src/algoliaInsights/generated-types.ts

Thanks @joe-ayoub-segment! Sorry, I missed that–no I did not mean to include it. Removed 👍

Hi @jkaho please run this command and commit the changes

yarn types

Hi again @jkaho , I reviewed the PR.

Regarding adding the new field authenticatedUserToken:

• Looks like this field is to capture an identifier for a user when the user is known to the customer. Does this mean that the userToken field was always intended to capture an anonymous user's anonymous identifier? because it used to try and capture the main identifier and only fell back to the anonymous one.
• How will this change affect customers who are already sending the Segment userId (which is the id for users who are known to the customer) to the userToken field? They won't be populating the authenticatedUserToken field (so it will be undefined).
• Are you able to provide evidence of testing this please?

Regarding the new Action:

• I don't think the default mapping used for ObjectIds field will work. Have you tested it locally?
• Are you able to provide evidence of testing this please?

Best regards,
Joe

hi again @jkaho can you please also run yarn types and commit the updated file please?

Hey @joe-ayoub-segment, appreciate the review!

• We added the authenticatedUserToken field a couple of years ago now, before which the userToken field was intended to capture either the auth or anon token. The addition of the new auth field meant we changed the way we recommend users send us user identifiers, though this wasn't a breaking change. If users don't set the auth token field, we will take the value from the user token field (which is required). Again, this change was made a little while ago now and neglecting to add support for it to our Segment connector was an oversight on our part. Is there anything you would recommend in terms of documentation to mitigate potential confusion?
• I have tested the object IDs mapping via the Actions Tester, and it does seem to map the correct values as per the highlighted portions in the screenshot below. Have I misinterpreted something here? Though, I am noticing that the input badge doesn't show in the user configuration UI..

Hey @joe-ayoub-segment, appreciate the review!

• We added the authenticatedUserToken field a couple of years ago now, before which the userToken field was intended to capture either the auth or anon token. The addition of the new auth field meant we changed the way we recommend users send us user identifiers, though this wasn't a breaking change. If users don't set the auth token field, we will take the value from the user token field (which is required). Again, this change was made a little while ago now and neglecting to add support for it to our Segment connector was an oversight on our part. Is there anything you would recommend in terms of documentation to mitigate potential confusion?
• I have tested the object IDs mapping via the Actions Tester, and it does seem to map the correct values as per the highlighted portions in the screenshot below. Have I misinterpreted something here? Though, I am noticing that the input badge doesn't show in the user configuration UI..

Hi @jkaho , that's correct, the 'badge' contains the mapping details the user gets to see in the UI. Our UI doesn't support this type of mapping, so while the mapping itself might work, it breaks the UI.

I suggest changing the mapping to something like this

{
        '@path': '$.properties.products.product_ids'
}

Hi @jkaho thanks for explaining the history of userToken and authenticatedUserToken.
I think the change is safe. i.e it will continue to work for customers who already have the Integration set up. And it will work for customers who set it up from the post deployment of this PR.

If you like, you could add a note to the Algolia Insights Integration's docs page to explain this change in a little more details.

Just add a new header and paragraph explaining what customers need to know. Our docs team will review and deploy the change.

Best regads,
Joe

@joe-ayoub-segment

{
       '@path': '$.properties.products.product_ids'
}

Hm, this doesn't conform to Segment's ecommerce spec though, right? I've updated the product ID mapping to be the same as the conversion events (purchase, add to cart) where we map the products object array and then apply a custom transformation after the payload is resolved. I feel like this approach might be preferable as it's consistent with our other event mappings.

Also pushed a change to the docs PR regarding the user tokens.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks @jkaho this looks good. Only a nit issue left. Please see the comments.
Best regards,
Joe

@joe-ayoub-segment thanks Joe, comments resolved. Let me know if any other changes are required.