[wip] fix: variant fallback usage #169
Closed
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 fixes a bug in how we use fallback variants in this SDK.
The fallback should be used when there is no flag, when the flag doesn't have any variants, and if the flag has variants, but is disabled. However, prior to this, it was only used if the flag didn't exist.
It addresses the issues in and closes #160.
Discussion points
Overriding
FeatureEnabledComparing this to the Node SDK, I noticed one thing that we don't seem to do: setting the
FeatureEnabledproperty based on the flag's enabled state.Because the fallback you pass in also has
FeatureEnabledas a property, you can in theory override this. However, that means you can get into situations where the flag is actually enabled, but the variant saysFeatureEnabledisfalsebecause that's what the fallback says. That seems incorrect to me, so I've added in some handling for that, but I'd like to get a second opinion on it.Code quality
This may be my first time writing Go, so it's very possible that I've missed some idioms or similar. Please feel free to correct as many things as you want.