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

fix: Remove invalid prereq check_variation_range check #261

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 28, 2024

Conversation

keelerm84
Copy link
Member

When parsing flag payload information, the SDK attempts to pre-check several failure conditions. One of those conditions was to ensure that a provided prereq has a valid variation index.

However, the system cannot actually perform this check at parse time since the prerequisite flag might not have been parsed yet.

As this check served only as a nice to have, I have removed it and added a test verifying the prereq behavior still operates as expected.

Fixes #260

When parsing flag payload information, the SDK attempts to pre-check
several failure conditions. One of those conditions was to ensure that a
provided prereq has a valid variation index.

However, the system cannot actually perform this check at parse time
since the prerequisite flag might not have been parsed yet.

As this check served only as a nice to have, I have removed it and added
a test verifying the prereq behavior still operates as expected.

Fixes #260
@keelerm84 keelerm84 requested a review from a team March 21, 2024 19:28
Copy link

This pull request has been linked to Shortcut Story #237484: Fix prereq range check.

@keelerm84 keelerm84 merged commit 960e392 into 7.x Mar 28, 2024
7 checks passed
@keelerm84 keelerm84 deleted the mk/sc-237484/fix-prereq-check-7.x branch March 28, 2024 13:03
keelerm84 added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
When parsing flag payload information, the SDK attempts to pre-check
several failure conditions. One of those conditions was to ensure that a
provided prereq has a valid variation index.

However, the system cannot actually perform this check at parse time
since the prerequisite flag might not have been parsed yet.

As this check served only as a nice to have, I have removed it and added
a test verifying the prereq behavior still operates as expected.

Fixes #260
keelerm84 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop*
---


##
[7.3.3](7.3.2...7.3.3)
(2024-03-28)


### Bug Fixes

* Remove invalid prereq `check_variation_range` check
([#261](#261))
([960e392](960e392)),
closes
[#260](#260)

---
This PR was generated with [Release
Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See
[documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please).

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
keelerm84 added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
When parsing flag payload information, the SDK attempts to pre-check
several failure conditions. One of those conditions was to ensure that a
provided prereq has a valid variation index.

However, the system cannot actually perform this check at parse time
since the prerequisite flag might not have been parsed yet.

As this check served only as a nice to have, I have removed it and added
a test verifying the prereq behavior still operates as expected.

Fixes #260
keelerm84 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop*
---


##
[8.3.1](8.3.0...8.3.1)
(2024-03-28)


### Bug Fixes

* Ensure Rails.logger exists before using it
([#258](#258))
([2f0f7ed](2f0f7ed))
* Remove invalid prereq `check_variation_range` check
([#261](#261))
([#263](#263))
([74ca206](74ca206)),
closes
[#260](#260)

---
This PR was generated with [Release
Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See
[documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please).

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
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.

2 participants