Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Improvement]: Combine the attribute for the import loading strategy with a defined object tree path #284

Open
kirladu opened this issue Dec 15, 2022 · 1 comment

Comments

@kirladu
Copy link

kirladu commented Dec 15, 2022

Improvement description

Improvement description (User story)

As a data maintainer of a product catalog I want to define a path (optional) to combine with the value of "Data Source Index" in order to be able to use the same class in the import resolver for multiple product vendors where the identifying attribute may not be unique.

Current situation
The import resolver configuration is lacking an option to limit a selection of elements by data object tree paths.

This leads to a situation where there can be 2 import files in separate import configuration jobs for different vendors in which the vendor SKU may not be unique in the whole PIM system.

Example:

Vendor A

SKU: ABC
Product: Super Food 2000

Vendor B

SKU: ABC
Product: Fashion Magazine

Since the only suitable loading strategy is by "Attribute" on the identifying field "SKU" it's not possible to create a clear configuration, where there is defined from which path the elements get loaded. The result is unpredictable and it's likely that the wrong element gets loaded and fatally updated by the wrong feed import.

Currently the challenge is afaik only solvable by modifying the original import source file to contain the unique identifier itself - which should not be a necessary workaround.

The improvement and herby solution to me is to introduce the combination with the path option as it is present in the sections "Element Creation" and "Element Location Update".

Draft:

grafik

Copy link

Thanks a lot for reporting the issue. We did not consider the issue as "Pimcore:Priority", "Pimcore:ToDo" or "Pimcore:Backlog", so we're not going to work on that anytime soon. Please create a pull request to fix the issue if this is a bug report. We'll then review it as quickly as possible. If you're interested in contributing a feature, please contact us first here before creating a pull request. We'll then decide whether we'd accept it or not. Thanks for your understanding.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant