-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
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
feat: Add evaluation details to finally hook stage #1246 #1262
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: Add evaluation details to finally hook stage #1246 #1262
Conversation
Signed-off-by: christian.lutnik <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1262 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 93.47% 93.65% +0.18%
- Complexity 464 465 +1
============================================
Files 43 43
Lines 1088 1088
Branches 86 86
============================================
+ Hits 1017 1019 +2
+ Misses 44 43 -1
+ Partials 27 26 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
…e#1246 Signed-off-by: christian.lutnik <[email protected]>
@@ -102,57 +101,4 @@ void shouldNotCallEvaluationMethodsWhenProviderIsInNotReadyState() { | |||
|
|||
assertThat(details.getErrorCode()).isEqualTo(ErrorCode.PROVIDER_NOT_READY); | |||
} | |||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was this just unused? 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, a leftover from a previous PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No notes!
Thanks!
Will wait for more reviews since this is an SDK change.
I'll also note that this is technically a breaking change, but I suggest that we mark it otherwise, just as we did in JS since:
- according to our spec,
experimental
(hooks are stillexperimental
) features are subject to breaking changes - the change is very easy to absorb (just add a parameter which can otherwise be ignored)
- it probably won't impact many hooks (very few use the finally stage (only 1 hook in the contribs is impacted)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thank you!
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.fail; | ||
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.*; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should avoid star imports
…e#1246 Signed-off-by: christian.lutnik <[email protected]>
…e#1246 Signed-off-by: christian.lutnik <[email protected]>
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
Will merge/release this next week unless I hear objections. We'll have to do some manual release notes as well when we do, as we did with JS: https://github.com/open-feature/js-sdk/releases/tag/web-sdk-v1.4.0 See also, same change in .NET: open-feature/dotnet-sdk#335 |
This PR
Add flag evaluation details to finally hook stage
Related Issues
Fixes #1246