feat: implement provider status#288
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #288 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.71% 94.06% -0.66%
==========================================
Files 18 18
Lines 492 539 +47
==========================================
+ Hits 466 507 +41
- Misses 26 32 +6
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
69119b6 to
9add52e
Compare
Signed-off-by: Federico Bond <federicobond@gmail.com>
9add52e to
ac530f8
Compare
|
The "short circuiting" behavior mentioned in 1.7.6 and 1.7.7 might be relevant enough to implement here as well: https://github.com/open-feature/spec/blob/37cf68b0d68b6814514bcded521b9e199efcead3/specification/sections/01-flag-evaluation.md?plain=1#L485-L502 |
toddbaert
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nothing looks wrong here to me, but there's a few related things that might be worth adding.
…L error Signed-off-by: Federico Bond <federicobond@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Federico Bond <federicobond@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Federico Bond <federicobond@gmail.com>
toddbaert
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks fully spec compliant to me, as far as provider status stuff goes.
This self-contained change introduces the functionality required to properly implement provider status events later. It has no user-visible changes at this point.
I wanted to split this out of the events pull request because it had the potential to snowball the size of the diff and lower the quality of the review in general.
I've introduced several seams that will make it easy to attach event handlers that respond to status changes later on.