Conversation
m2broth
requested review from
b1ff,
blackrabbit99,
stas-nc,
wRLSS and
yehor-manzhula
stas-nc
reviewed
Feb 16, 2026
stas-nc
force-pushed
the
feat/add_multibrand
branch
from
b796c1a to
1d6106b
Compare
|
|
||
| interface DomainTemplateResult { | ||
| template: Template | null; | ||
| brandId?: string; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could you please explain the reasoning of extending this interface ?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's odd - left from the previous implementation. I will remove it
| return {}; | ||
| } | ||
| if (typeof props === 'string') { | ||
| return JSON.parse(props) as DomainProps; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
very rude we can use typeguard here
|
|
||
| scope | ||
| .get(include.api.route) | ||
| .matchHeader('x-request-brand', 'spaceship') |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is x-request-brand mean ?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
x-request-brand passes brand context from registry to include endpoints.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
x-ilc-request-brand ?
or something like that
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
renamed to x-ilc-request-brand
stas-nc
reviewed
Feb 19, 2026
| template = await getTemplateByDomain(String(domain), templateName); | ||
| const domainItem = await getDomainByName(domain); | ||
| if (domainItem) { | ||
| const domainProps = domainItem.props ? (parseJSON(domainItem.props) as Record<string, any>) : null; |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function accepts generic, and also prefer unknown over any
wRLSS
approved these changes
Feb 23, 2026
blackrabbit99
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2026
Coverage ReportIlc/serverCommit SHA:1e0fe1e16d65bb66c0eebc1cae06fc4680b5b761 Test coverage results 🧪File details
Ilc/clientCommit SHA:1e0fe1e16d65bb66c0eebc1cae06fc4680b5b761 Test coverage results 🧪File details
RegistryCommit SHA:1e0fe1e16d65bb66c0eebc1cae06fc4680b5b761 Test coverage results 🧪File details
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Motivation
The original approach added a dedicated brandId column to router_domains, propagated it through SDK options, config injection, header filtering, and request fragments.
This was simplified to use the existing props JSON field on router_domains (e.g. props: { brandId: "spaceship" }), which:
into app configs (existing transformConfig.ts behavior)
The only place that needed explicit brandId extraction is template include fetching, where the registry sends x-request-brand header to include endpoints so they can return brand-specific content.
Changes
ILC (template caching & domain routing):
different routes use the same template
Registry (brand context for includes):
still get brand context