feat: add missing steps for config and improve wording #311
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @aepfli, 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 focuses on enhancing the configuration documentation and associated test scenarios. It introduces a new Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe 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
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 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
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces the fatalStatusCodes configuration option by updating the Gherkin feature files with documentation and new test steps. It also improves the wording in one of the connection scenarios. The changes look good overall, but I've found a Gherkin syntax error in the configuration table and a potential inconsistency in the documentation for the new option. Please see my detailed comment.
Signed-off-by: Simon Schrottner <[email protected]>
aepfli
force-pushed
the
feat/add-config-steps-and-rewording
branch
from
5b39358 to
2df282f
Compare
| And a error event handler | ||
| Then the error event handler should have been executed within 5000ms | ||
| And the client is in fatal state | ||
| And the client should be in fatal state |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we use "provider" instead of "client"? In my understanding, the state of the provider (which the client is connected to) should be fatal, not the client itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
depends, on how you check this. There has been already some discussion about this. if we call it provider we would need to wait for the event listener to run with an fatal event, which is currently not the case. But we can check on the client what state it has (it will use the provider state). Anyways providers are theoretically stateless, and the client is managing the state. So i think we are fine here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. Just mentioned it because it confused me at first as in java the corresponding client method is getProviderState().
alexandraoberaigner
left a comment
alexandraoberaigner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
approve but pls consider my question above :)
We need to wait for open-feature/flagd#1818 as it seems like it is not 100% defined if we need an env var or not.