feat(optimizely)!: Optimizely provider concepts updates

[liran2000]

Align with Go provider, see discussion.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @liran2000, 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 refactors the Optimizely Java provider to enhance its feature flag evaluation capabilities and align with the concepts established in the Go provider. The changes enable direct support for various data types in flag evaluations and introduce a flexible way to select specific variables within Optimizely flags, thereby improving the provider's functionality and consistency across different OpenFeature SDKs.

Highlights

• Direct Evaluation Support: The Optimizely provider now directly supports String, Integer, and Double flag evaluations, moving away from throwing UnsupportedOperationException for these types.
• Variable Key Selection: A new mechanism has been introduced to allow specifying a variableKey within the EvaluationContext to select a particular variable from an Optimizely feature flag, defaulting to 'value' if not specified.
• Updated Evaluation Logic: All evaluation methods (getBooleanEvaluation, getStringEvaluation, getIntegerEvaluation, getDoubleEvaluation, getObjectEvaluation) have been refactored to use specific Optimizely SDK getFeatureVariableX methods, improving precision and alignment with Optimizely's variable concepts.
• Enhanced Documentation and Tests: The README.md has been updated to reflect the new evaluation concepts, and comprehensive unit tests have been added and modified to cover the new functionality, including variableKey usage and default value handling.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The 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 /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

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 .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

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

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request significantly improves the Optimizely provider by aligning it with modern concepts, particularly using feature variables for typed evaluations. This is a great step forward for functionality. The code changes are well-supported by updated documentation and a comprehensive new test suite.

I've identified a critical issue across the new evaluation methods (getStringEvaluation, getIntegerEvaluation, getDoubleEvaluation, getObjectEvaluation) where a null default value could lead to a NullPointerException. I've provided specific suggestions to make these methods more robust. Additionally, I've suggested adding test cases to cover this scenario and pointed out an opportunity to reduce code duplication for better maintainability. Addressing these points will solidify the provider's reliability.

[toddbaert]

@liran2000 I'll review and possibly merge this tomrrow.

[toddbaert]

@liran2000 do you think it makes sense (to align even more with the Go implementation) that we should take an optimizely client instance instead of a config? This also might be less brittle in terms of new options, etc.

If so, just be careful of this.

[liran2000]

@liran2000 do you think it makes sense (to align even more with the Go implementation) that we should take an optimizely client instance instead of a config? This also might be less brittle in terms of new options, etc.

If so, just be careful of this.

@toddbaert I think than config fits better here.
It is pretty common for provider to take config for init. And hides inner implementation of simple provider usage from consumers.