Skip to content

Conversation

@valentinp10
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@valentinp10 valentinp10 self-assigned this Nov 7, 2025
davies-jack
davies-jack previously approved these changes Nov 7, 2025
"jobPostId": {
"typeRef": "#/domains/JobBoardApplication/types/JobPostId"
},
"jobid": {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a note, this probably could be jobId instead of just jobid :D

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this might be a legacy thing from CVL and should only appear on their applications. Shouldn't need it if/when they migrate to the new application endpoint

"submit": {
"typeRef": "#/domains/JobBoardApplication/types/Submit"
},
"jobPostId": {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just noticed here, I might be wrong but from what I can see is that we now have jobPostId within both client and root? Might be a good idea to choose one to reduce any future confusion

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes. The "official" place for jobPostId was Client, but some clients integrated it in the root. Now we have to support both.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@valentinp10 the only client that has directly integrated is CVL, who I think use jobid on applications? Other jobs are created by the recruitment-service which Jack is updating to meet the protocol requirements so this could be an opportunity to remove it at the root by the sounds of things?

@davies-jack davies-jack dismissed their stale review November 9, 2025 20:32

Noticed a duplicate within the schema so wanting to ensure nothing is wrong with this before we go ahead and merge!

Copy link

@alexcupit alexcupit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Think this looks good! Do we also want to add the outputs here such as triggerProxyEmailFallback, resolvedUrl and serviceData?

@valentinp10
Copy link
Contributor Author

Think this looks good! Do we also want to add the outputs here such as triggerProxyEmailFallback, resolvedUrl and serviceData?

I never received the schema, I only know it exists, but if we use it then yes, we want to add it

@davies-jack
Copy link
Contributor

Will wait for this to be merged before I merge my work in https://github.com/ubio/recruitment-service/pull/74

@davies-jack
Copy link
Contributor

Think this looks good! Do we also want to add the outputs here such as triggerProxyEmailFallback, resolvedUrl and serviceData?

triggerProxyEmailFallback will be a key on output, need to confirm the value as we just use the existence of the key.
resolvedUrl will be a string.
serviceData will be an object like so: {
domain
serviceId
url
}

Am I missing anything @alexcupit?

@alexcupit
Copy link

Think this looks good! Do we also want to add the outputs here such as triggerProxyEmailFallback, resolvedUrl and serviceData?

triggerProxyEmailFallback will be a key on output, need to confirm the value as we just use the existence of the key. resolvedUrl will be a string. serviceData will be an object like so: { domain serviceId url }

Am I missing anything @alexcupit?

Looking at recent ATS-Lookup jobs, these are the schemas being used. I think these two outputs only exist on ATS-Lookup so we could also delay enabling strict mode on this service if required.

image image

As for triggerProxyEmailFallback which is used in application scripts, it looks to be a boolean :

image

@davies-jack davies-jack merged commit 815f0b6 into master Nov 17, 2025
1 check 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.

4 participants