You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I originally asked Stitch support and they pointed me here. I'm a newbie user to both Chargebee and this integration so my apologies in advance if my ask isn't clear.
Our Chargebee implementation uses product catalog 2.0 which I expected would be flattened out tables into addons, plans, etc. on extract. I also noticed in the stitch integration documentation it said the tables/fields would be based on the product catalog version. The stitch integration says it's using version 1.0. The main question here is, if we're using product catalog 2.0, should I expect extracted tables to be flatted out and not nested? For example, item constraints is nested into coupons rather than being it's own table. Can you help me understand if I'm missing something or misunderstanding something?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I originally asked Stitch support and they pointed me here. I'm a newbie user to both Chargebee and this integration so my apologies in advance if my ask isn't clear.
Our Chargebee implementation uses product catalog 2.0 which I expected would be flattened out tables into addons, plans, etc. on extract. I also noticed in the stitch integration documentation it said the tables/fields would be based on the product catalog version. The stitch integration says it's using version 1.0. The main question here is, if we're using product catalog 2.0, should I expect extracted tables to be flatted out and not nested? For example, item constraints is nested into coupons rather than being it's own table. Can you help me understand if I'm missing something or misunderstanding something?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: