feat!: make default variant optional#333
Conversation
Signed-off-by: marcozabel <marco.zabel@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: marcozabel <marco.zabel@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: marcozabel <marco.zabel@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: marcozabel <marco.zabel@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: marcozabel <marco.zabel@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: marcozabel <marco.zabel@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request focuses on updating the Highlights
Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates the flagd base image to v0.14.0 and adjusts the Gherkin evaluation tests to reflect a breaking change: making the defaultVariant optional. No security vulnerabilities were found. The changes are logical and well-tested, correctly validating that when a defaultVariant is not specified, the evaluation now falls back to the SDK-provided default value with a DEFAULT reason. There is one minor suggestion to improve the clarity of one of the new test cases.
| | undefined-default-flag | Integer | | 100 | 100 | DEFAULT | | ||
| | no-default-flag-null-targeting-variant | String | wozniak@orange.com | Inventor | Inventor | DEFAULT | | ||
| | no-default-flag-null-targeting-variant | String | wozniak@orange.com | Founder | Founder | DEFAULT | | ||
| | no-default-flag-null-targeting-variant | String | jobs@orange.com | CEO | CEO | TARGETING_MATCH | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For this test case, the code_default and resolved_value are identical even though the resolution reason is TARGETING_MATCH. This can be confusing. To make it clear that the code_default is ignored when targeting matches, consider using a different value for code_default, for example "fallback".
| no-default-flag-null-targeting-variant | String | jobs@orange.com | fallback | CEO | TARGETING_MATCH |
replaying #331