@BKadirkhodjaev One important difference is that you are sending partial items. I am not finding any documentation or code saying /item-storage/batch/synchronous would merge properties from existing items with the upserted ones (I looked at mod-inventory-storage, RMB postSync() and RMB upsert()). Can you explain why sending partial items is sufficient ?

@BKadirkhodjaev One important difference is that you are sending partial items. I am not finding any documentation or code saying /item-storage/batch/synchronous would merge properties from existing items with the upserted ones (I looked at mod-inventory-storage, RMB postSync() and RMB upsert()). Can you explain why sending partial items is sufficient ?

Hmm, good catch. I've asked Pavlo from Spitfire to help me understand whether it can truly patch values. In case it does not, I will try to change the fetch items endpoint to retrieve directly from mod-inventory-storage to match the shape of the batch endpoint

@BKadirkhodjaev One important difference is that you are sending partial items. I am not finding any documentation or code saying /item-storage/batch/synchronous would merge properties from existing items with the upserted ones (I looked at mod-inventory-storage, RMB postSync() and RMB upsert()). Can you explain why sending partial items is sufficient ?

Pavlo suggested we use this endpoint, it supports proper patching:

• https://s3.amazonaws.com/foliodocs/api/mod-inventory-storage/r/item-storage.html#item_storage_items_patch

Pavlo suggested we use this endpoint, it supports proper patching:

* https://s3.amazonaws.com/foliodocs/api/mod-inventory-storage/r/item-storage.html#item_storage_items_patch

Good, that makes sense and it's still a batch update.

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
97.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud