126 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
126 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
# Order Validation & Salesforce Field Mapping Audit Report
|
|
|
|
## 🔍 **Audit Summary**
|
|
|
|
### ✅ **What's Working Correctly:**
|
|
|
|
1. **Core Order Fields** - All documented fields are properly mapped:
|
|
- `AccountId`, `EffectiveDate`, `Status`, `Pricebook2Id`, `Order_Type__c` ✅
|
|
|
|
2. **Activation Fields** - Correctly implemented:
|
|
- `Activation_Type__c`, `Activation_Scheduled_At__c`, `Activation_Status__c` ✅
|
|
|
|
3. **Internet Fields** - All documented fields mapped:
|
|
- `Internet_Plan_Tier__c`, `Installation_Type__c`, `Weekend_Install__c`, `Access_Mode__c`, `Hikari_Denwa__c` ✅
|
|
|
|
4. **SIM Fields** - All documented fields mapped:
|
|
- `SIM_Type__c`, `EID__c`, `SIM_Voice_Mail__c`, `SIM_Call_Waiting__c` + MNP fields ✅
|
|
|
|
5. **VPN Fields** - Correctly implemented:
|
|
- `VPN_Region__c` ✅
|
|
|
|
### ⚠️ **Issues Found:**
|
|
|
|
## **Issue 1: Field Mapping Not Used in Order Builder**
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Our `order-builder.service.ts` is hardcoding field names instead of using the field mapping configuration.
|
|
|
|
**Current Implementation:**
|
|
```typescript
|
|
// Hardcoded field names
|
|
orderFields.Internet_Plan_Tier__c = serviceProduct.internetPlanTier;
|
|
orderFields.Access_Mode__c = config.accessMode;
|
|
orderFields.Installation_Type__c = installType;
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Should Be:**
|
|
```typescript
|
|
// Using field mapping
|
|
const fields = getSalesforceFieldMap();
|
|
orderFields[fields.order.internetPlanTier] = serviceProduct.internetPlanTier;
|
|
orderFields[fields.order.accessMode] = config.accessMode;
|
|
orderFields[fields.order.installationType] = installType;
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## **Issue 2: Missing Documentation Alignment**
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Documentation shows different API structure than implementation.
|
|
|
|
**Documentation Says:**
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"items": [
|
|
{ "productId": "...", "billingCycle": "...", "configOptions": {...} }
|
|
],
|
|
"promoCode": "...",
|
|
"notes": "..."
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Current Implementation:**
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"orderType": "Internet",
|
|
"skus": ["INTERNET-SILVER-HOME-1G", "..."],
|
|
"configurations": { "accessMode": "PPPoE" }
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## **Issue 3: Validation Logic vs Documentation**
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Our validation doesn't match documented requirements exactly.
|
|
|
|
**Documentation Requirements:**
|
|
- "Server-side checks: require WHMCS mapping; require `hasPaymentMethod=true`"
|
|
- "Create Salesforce Order (Pending Review)"
|
|
|
|
**Current Implementation:** ✅ Correctly implemented
|
|
|
|
## **Issue 4: Missing Order Status Progression**
|
|
|
|
**Documentation Shows:**
|
|
- Initial Status: "Pending Review"
|
|
- After Approval: "Provisioned"
|
|
- Error States: "Failed"
|
|
|
|
**Current Implementation:** ✅ Sets "Pending Review" correctly
|
|
|
|
## **Issue 5: MNP Field Mapping Inconsistency**
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Some MNP fields use different patterns.
|
|
|
|
**Field Map Shows:**
|
|
```typescript
|
|
mnp: {
|
|
application: "MNP_Application__c",
|
|
reservationNumber: "MNP_Reservation_Number__c",
|
|
// ...
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Order Builder Uses:**
|
|
```typescript
|
|
orderFields.MNP_Application__c = true; // ✅ Correct
|
|
orderFields.MNP_Reservation_Number__c = config.mnpNumber; // ✅ Correct
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## **Recommendations:**
|
|
|
|
### 1. **Fix Field Mapping Usage** (High Priority)
|
|
Update `order-builder.service.ts` to use the field mapping configuration instead of hardcoded field names.
|
|
|
|
### 2. **API Structure Alignment** (Medium Priority)
|
|
Decide whether to:
|
|
- Update documentation to match current SKU-based implementation
|
|
- OR update implementation to match item-based documentation
|
|
|
|
### 3. **Add Field Validation** (Medium Priority)
|
|
Add validation to ensure all required Salesforce fields are present before order creation.
|
|
|
|
### 4. **Environment Configuration** (Low Priority)
|
|
Ensure all field mappings can be overridden via environment variables for different Salesforce orgs.
|
|
|
|
## **Overall Assessment: 🟡 MOSTLY CORRECT**
|
|
|
|
The core functionality is working correctly, but we need to fix the field mapping usage for better maintainability and environment flexibility.
|