Skip to content
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: test multiple fractional flags with shared seed #115

Merged

Conversation

colebaileygit
Copy link
Contributor

@colebaileygit colebaileygit commented Mar 30, 2024

This PR

  • updates test suite to handle fractional op with custom seed

Related Issues

open-feature/flagd#1264

Notes

Follow-up Tasks

How to test

see open-feature/flagd#1266

@colebaileygit
Copy link
Contributor Author

colebaileygit commented Apr 2, 2024

@beeme1mr Ran into a small snag since the flagd-testbed submodule in flagd main is quite out of date. After syncing the master back to this branch I now see the golang integration test scenarios are not all wired up yet

When testing this change with the the python provider PR, I get an error for the 3 edge case set here:

  Scenario Outline: Fractional operator
    When a string flag with key "fractional-flag" is evaluated with default value "fallback"
    And a context containing a nested property with outer key "user" and inner key "name", with value <name>
    Then the returned value should be <value>
    Examples:
      | name    | value      |
      | "jack"  | "spades"   |
      | "queen" | "clubs"    |
      | "ten"   | "diamonds" |
      | "nine"  | "hearts"   |
      | 3       | "wild"     |

Looks like it used to error and go to default case since the input was not string, but now that we use cat operator it gets cast to string automatically. I'm leaning towards updating this test case but now to verify the flagd master behavior is in sync, we need to spend some time on the test suite as well (and maybe also in other providers)

Alternatively, we can continue basing this PR off of something that is not main, but then we are missing some new test cases esp edge cases so I think that's a non-starter.

EDIT: After hacking together a local test it looks like integer inputs to jsonlogic cat do error for golang, but not for javascript or python. Don't think we can easily fix that inconsistency unless we look at updating the cat operator upstream or overriding in flagd? I'd say the javascript / python behavior is correct personally

@beeme1mr
Copy link
Member

beeme1mr commented Apr 2, 2024

EDIT: After hacking together a local test it looks like integer inputs to jsonlogic cat do error for golang, but not for javascript or python. Don't think we can easily fix that inconsistency unless we look at updating the cat operator upstream or overriding in flagd? I'd say the javascript / python behavior is correct personally

It looks like someone opened an issue about this yesterday.

@Kavindu-Dodan
Copy link
Contributor

Kavindu-Dodan commented Apr 2, 2024

@colebaileygit could you specify the error that you are seeing ? I checked this from jsonlogic end and diegoholiveira/jsonlogic#77 is applicable only if we use jsonlogic.ApplyInterface with a custom data input. But for flagd's usage, we should get the data input from a json unmarshel, which should still work as Go's json unmarshel use float64 for any number value.

@colebaileygit
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Kavindu-Dodan Wish I could share a proper test case, but to reproduce I updated the test-harness submodule in flagd to latest from this branch and ran the tests. Since there is more work needed to get the gherkin tests fully wired there, I simply modified one of the tests in core/pkg/evaluator/fractional_test.go to have "email": 3 as input as a quick proxy.

This line:

err = jsonlogic.Apply(bytes.NewReader(targetingBytes), bytes.NewReader(b), &result)

Returns this error:

interface conversion: interface {} is float64, not []interface {}

@Kavindu-Dodan
Copy link
Contributor

Kavindu-Dodan commented Apr 2, 2024

@colebaileygit the failure is generated from in operation and not from the cat operation. The error is thrown from here [1] as our second argument is not an array (nor string). (see testcase - https://github.com/open-feature/flagd/blob/main/core/pkg/evaluator/fractional_test.go#L25-L28 )

From JSON logic explanation, there's no restriction on argument however, both in and cat are specified as String operations [2].

I think we should reconsider our fractional tests if we want to change email to a number (3 is not a valid email anyway ;) )

[1] - https://github.com/diegoholiveira/jsonlogic/blob/v3.4.0/jsonlogic.go#L172
[2] - https://jsonlogic.com/operations.html#in-1

@colebaileygit
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Kavindu-Dodan You're right! I overlooked that if statement.

Good news is in the test-harness suite we don't use if-in logic so that test should actually still be valid. I re-ran a hacked test using 3 and fractional-cat-- it works and also allocates user to one of the variants. That's good news since the implementations do match, and also confirms that this gherkin test is no longer valid with this case: | 3 | "wild" | since it will generate one of the non-default variants now.

Copy link
Contributor

@Kavindu-Dodan Kavindu-Dodan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@colebaileygit perfect, I will approve. But I will wait for @toddbaert's review to merge this as he worked a lot with these test suites :)

@Kavindu-Dodan Kavindu-Dodan requested a review from toddbaert April 2, 2024 21:22
@diegoholiveira
Copy link

@Kavindu-Dodan Wish I could share a proper test case, but to reproduce I updated the test-harness submodule in flagd to latest from this branch and ran the tests. Since there is more work needed to get the gherkin tests fully wired there, I simply modified one of the tests in core/pkg/evaluator/fractional_test.go to have "email": 3 as input as a quick proxy.

This line:

err = jsonlogic.Apply(bytes.NewReader(targetingBytes), bytes.NewReader(b), &result)

Returns this error:

interface conversion: interface {} is float64, not []interface {}

Can you please provide me the json that provoke this error? I'll be glad to fix it on diegoholiveira/jsonlogic. The example provided on diegoholiveira/jsonlogic#77 does not looks right to me (I explain why into the issue).

@Kavindu-Dodan
Copy link
Contributor

Kavindu-Dodan commented Apr 3, 2024

@Kavindu-Dodan Wish I could share a proper test case, but to reproduce I updated the test-harness submodule in flagd to latest from this branch and ran the tests. Since there is more work needed to get the gherkin tests fully wired there, I simply modified one of the tests in core/pkg/evaluator/fractional_test.go to have "email": 3 as input as a quick proxy.
This line:

err = jsonlogic.Apply(bytes.NewReader(targetingBytes), bytes.NewReader(b), &result)

Returns this error:

interface conversion: interface {} is float64, not []interface {}

Can you please provide me the json that provoke this error? I'll be glad to fix it on diegoholiveira/jsonlogic. The example provided on diegoholiveira/jsonlogic#77 does not looks right to me (I explain why into the issue).

@diegoholiveira first of all thank you for maintaining the Go jsonlogic library 🙌

The root cause was not due to any bug in the library. It was caused by improper usage of the in operator.

Rule

{"in": ["@faas.com",  {"var": ["email"]} ]}

Context

{"email" : 3}

This is supposed to be failing anyway :)

Anyway, I attempted to support int type handling with PR diegoholiveira/jsonlogic#78. Feel free to have a look when you have time.

flags/custom-ops.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@toddbaert toddbaert self-requested a review April 5, 2024 20:56
Copy link
Member

@toddbaert toddbaert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks all!

Approved. I pushed 2 small changes to fix the spacing, and change the variants in the nested example to be actual cards (ace-of-spades instead of spades-B; I know that's very silly but I really like the theme and I couldn't help myself 😅 ).

@beeme1mr beeme1mr merged commit 25544e4 into open-feature:main Apr 6, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants