feat: Implement Requirement 1.1.2 #78
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #78 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 99.22% 99.25% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 11 11
Lines 129 134 +5
==========================================
+ Hits 128 133 +5
Misses 1 1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
beeme1mr
previously approved these changes
Sep 21, 2023
josecolella
previously approved these changes
Sep 22, 2023
|
@technicalpickles Apologies for the multi-month delay here; just wrapped up paternity leave! Will review the comments and respond/push some fixes today or tomorrow. |
Creates a new specification folder under specs that contains direct OpenFeature specification tests. Adds a test for Requirement 1.1.1. Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]> Test name typo Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
move to Configuration instead of being directly on API. Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
beeme1mr
previously approved these changes
Jan 26, 2024
|
@technicalpickles @josecolella Bumping this PR to see if you all might have any time to review it this week 🙏🏻 |
|
Hey @toddbaert, could you please take a quick look at this pr to unblock @maxveldink? |
|
@maxveldink @beeme1mr I'll review this today. |
josecolella
previously approved these changes
Feb 6, 2024
toddbaert
reviewed
Feb 6, 2024
toddbaert
reviewed
Feb 6, 2024
toddbaert
reviewed
Feb 6, 2024
toddbaert
reviewed
Feb 6, 2024
toddbaert
reviewed
Feb 6, 2024
Co-authored-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
maxveldink
dismissed stale reviews from toddbaert, josecolella, and beeme1mr
via
e17405a
Co-authored-by: Josh Nichols <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
toddbaert
previously approved these changes
Feb 9, 2024
Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Max VelDink <[email protected]>
technicalpickles
approved these changes
Feb 22, 2024
This was referenced Feb 22, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This PR
Note that this is built off of #77 and will not have that base commit if that commit is accepted.
initandshutdownmethod. I believe we want to leave the defaultinitializebehavior alone in Ruby to satisfy this requirement. This means someone can initialize a Provider instance (and use whatever construction logic there is) and define aninitmethod invoked when the provider is set.providerwriter method onConfigurationwith the behavior required for this requirement. In the following Requirement, which introduced named providers, we should consider renaming this toset_providerorregister_provideror something similar, as there will be an additional argument that would be an unexpected writer signature. That will be a breaking change and is not strictly required for this requirement, so I decided to defer that.Follow-up Tasks
I plan on continuing to implement the flag evaluation API in subsequent PRs.
How to test
Ensure that providers can still be set while configuring OpenFeature. You can play around with a stub Provider that implements
initandshutdownto verify those are also called as expected.