-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
fix: surface get flags initialization errors #323
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
Open
Zaimwa9
wants to merge
8
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
fix/surface-get-flags-initialization-errors
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e33a233
fix: catch-errors-and-not-initialize
Zaimwa9 b0badfa
fix: removed-style-changes
Zaimwa9 094e211
fix: error-wording
Zaimwa9 ead3e98
fix: restored-previous-wanted-behaviors
Zaimwa9 03e1184
fix: re-added-prevent-fetch-condition
Zaimwa9 bc06ce2
fix: added-test
Zaimwa9 71c170b
fix: wrapped-on-retrieved-storage-with-error
Zaimwa9 35d3a81
fix: removed-blank-line
Zaimwa9 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
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.
@kyle-ssg , I'm a bit unconfortable here due to this test:
test('should not reject but call onError, when the identities/ API cannot be reached with the cache populated'
Just to give you context. This PR is really specific to flagsmithOnFlagsmith, hence why you can find a check
flagsmith !== defaultApi
.I don't want to change the generic SDK behavior.
However here it feels like there is some redundancy => Is there a reason why we don't check
shouldFetchFlags
a bit earlier and haveif (cachePopulated && !shouldFetchFlags)
? A fallback reason ? Maybe we could deal with it in case of failure.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.
Overall, it would help me to understand what's the behavior we want in case of failure. While working on this, there are a couple of points that are unclear to me, especially concerning an API error.
Why don't we want to throw the errors directly and stop the initialization?
To me the cases we have are:
Well, it's a bit particular with FoF as for most of the flags we are dealing with the platform ones, that shouldn't be critical.