Updates the **App Management** documentation to reflect recent changes - #542
Merged
Conversation
danidelcar
added
the
major-update
asalloum5
reviewed
Apr 22, 2026
|
|
||
| `getConfiguration`, `getConfigurationByKey`, and `setConfiguration` accept an **optional** scope selector. When you omit it, the library resolves **global** scope (the same default used when you call `byCode` with only a scope code). | ||
|
|
||
| `byCode("my-scope")` applies the **global** level when you do not pass a level separately. To target another level (for example `base`), use `byCodeAndLevel("my-scope", "base")` or the selector that matches your scope tree. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a bit misleading and confusing. If I create a new scope in App Management for the app that is not linked to commerce, I specify a code only. When trying to getByCode I should be able to get the values of the scope created without having to know what level value was added. If am not wrong, the level base is added by default so this can create errors and support tickets.
@iivvaannxx can you please confirm the above?
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was changed recently as part of this ticket CEXT-6105, which was created after @oshmyheliuk reported a confusing DX he had in this Slack thread.
I didn't know that the UI applied level of base, I thought it just didn't set a level. If that's the case then maybe we need to reconsider whether that change should be released or not (it hasn't yet). Seems to me like a tradeoff between these two cases:
-
We keep it as before, in which case we cannot use
byCode("global")as that would search forcode: globalandlevel: base-> A bit worse DX if you usually retrieve the values from theglobalscope. -
We keep the change, in which case we will need to document that all custom scopes created from the UI have a
levelofbase(could this be changed?) and users need to specify it.
I think that using the global scope is the most common use case for now, so I'd be inclined to keep the change, but it's true that it might be prone to error if users don't know about this base level.
iivvaannxx
reviewed
Apr 22, 2026
keharper
reviewed
Apr 22, 2026
Co-authored-by: Ivan Porto Wigner <dev.ivanporto@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Kevin Harper <keharper@users.noreply.github.com>
iivvaannxx
reviewed
Apr 23, 2026
|
|
||
| * **App developers** declare webhooks in the `webhooks` field of `app.commerce.config`. That manifest is what App Management uses to know which webhook subscriptions belong to your app. | ||
| * **Merchants** complete whatever steps are required for App Management and the Commerce Admin **after** the app is associated. That typically means confirming or supplying connection details that the app cannot hard-code (for example, OAuth or credentials that the Admin stores as secrets, or reviewing subscription labels so hooks register against the right instance). The exact steps depend on your app and Commerce edition. See [Install and access App Management](https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/commerce/app-management/install#access-app-management) and [Commerce webhooks and apps](https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/commerce/app-management/install#commerce-webhooks-and-apps) on Experience League. | ||
| * **Merchants** receive an out-of-the-box experience with webhooks. See [Install and access App Management](https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/commerce/app-management/install#access-app-management) and [Commerce webhooks and apps](https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/commerce/app-management/install#commerce-webhooks-and-apps) for more information. |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@oshmyheliuk can you confirm this? I suggested @danidelcar to do it as I believe we talked about this and you agreed no further steps should be needed, but I prefer to double-check
asalloum5
approved these changes
May 14, 2026
keharper
approved these changes
May 14, 2026
github-project-automation
Bot
moved this from 📋 Needs Review
to 👍 Approved
in Commerce - Pull Requests
Contributor
🔍 Linter ReportClick to expand full reportThis comment was automatically generated by the linter bot. |
github-project-automation
Bot
moved this from 👍 Approved
to 🏁 Done
in Commerce - Pull Requests
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
5 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.
Purpose of this pull request
This pull request (PR) updates the App Management documentation to reflect recent SDK behavior, clarify deployment and Git practices, and help merchants and developers resolve common access and environment issues.
Affected pages
Links to Magento Open Source code
Summary of changes
configuration-schema.md) — Documents optional scope selectors on configuration APIs, default global scope,byCodevsbyCodeAndLevel, and links to the Adobe Commerce SDK configuration library usage guide.build-deploy.md) — Adds Version control: commitapp.commerce.config,ext.config.yaml, and.generatedoutputs to Git for a reproducible project; points to password encryption for secrets.initialize-app.md) — After init, reminds readers to commit new and updated files, with a link to the version control section.index.md) — Clarifies App Management ACL placement under Admin UI SDK in Role Resources, links to troubleshooting; states that App Management is not supported for local Adobe Commerce installations and links to troubleshooting for detail.troubleshooting.md) — New Cannot access App Management (permissions) walkthrough (System > User Roles > Role Resources) with screenshot; new Local Adobe Commerce instances limitation note.Asset:
app-management-role-resources.pngadded undersrc/pages/_images/app-management/.Additional information
major-updatelabelWhat's New highlights
whatsnew
Updated App Management docs: Overview now calls out ACL under Admin UI SDK and that local Commerce is unsupported; Troubleshooting adds Role Resources steps (with screenshot) and a local-instances limitation; Build and deploy and Initialize your app explain committing generated artifacts to Git; Business configuration documents global default scope and optional configuration selectors with a link to the SDK usage guide.