Skip to content

Document the Update invoice details step in the Chargebee guide - #463

Merged
pmenendz merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chargebee-update-invoice-details-docs
Jun 30, 2026
Merged

Document the Update invoice details step in the Chargebee guide#463
pmenendz merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chargebee-update-invoice-details-docs

Conversation

@pmenendz

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What

Documents the new Update invoice details step (chargebee.update.details) in the Chargebee guide.

The step writes values produced during a workflow back onto the originating Chargebee document — today as custom fields via Chargebee's update_details endpoint, and as a comment for credit notes (which Chargebee can't update). The motivating use case is recording a tax authority's reference number, such as the Polish KSeF number, into a Chargebee custom field.

Changes

  • New "Writing values back to Chargebee" section in guides/chargebee.mdx, covering:
    • what the step does and the invoice vs. credit-note behaviour
    • configuration (field/value table, expr expressions over the GOBL envelope, the find(head.stamps, …) lookup used for the KSeF number)
    • a JSON example of the step
    • placement guidance (the value must already exist in the envelope)
  • Two screenshots added under assets/guides/: the step config panel and the populated custom field on a Chargebee invoice.

Notes

  • The KSeF example uses the real expression find(head.stamps, {.prv == "favat-ksef-number"}).val (the value lives in head.stamps, not doc.ext).
  • No workflow template snippets were modified — the step is documented but not pre-wired into any cb-* template.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Adds a "Writing values back to Chargebee" section covering the new
chargebee.update.details step, which writes workflow-resolved values
(e.g. the Polish KSeF number) back onto the originating Chargebee
invoice as custom fields — or, for credit notes, as a comment.

Includes configuration guidance (field/value table, expr expressions
over the GOBL envelope, the head.stamps lookup for the KSeF number),
a JSON example, placement notes, and two screenshots.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings June 29, 2026 17:18

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

Adds documentation to the Chargebee guide for the new Update invoice details workflow step (chargebee.update.details), explaining how to write values produced during a workflow back onto the originating Chargebee invoice/credit note, including a KSeF example and supporting screenshots.

Changes:

  • New “Writing values back to Chargebee” section in guides/chargebee.mdx describing behavior (invoice vs. credit note), configuration, an expr example, and step placement guidance.
  • Adds screenshots showing the step configuration UI and the resulting custom field on a Chargebee invoice.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
guides/chargebee.mdx Documents the new “Update invoice details” step, including configuration details, expr examples, and JSON sample.
assets/guides/cb_update_invoice_details.png Screenshot referenced by the new section showing step configuration.
assets/guides/cb_updated_custom_field.png Screenshot referenced by the new section showing the populated custom field result in Chargebee.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@pmenendz
pmenendz merged commit 22364b6 into main Jun 30, 2026
1 check passed
@pmenendz
pmenendz deleted the chargebee-update-invoice-details-docs branch June 30, 2026 13:11
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.

2 participants