fix: fixing sync return format missing flag layer

[aepfli]

with #1797 we introduced this bug, that the format of the response is not correct.

current state:

{ 
    flagConfiguration: {/* flag object */}
}

should be:

{ 
    flagConfiguration: {
       flags: {/* flag object */}
    }
}

Clarification from @toddbaert - this is an UNRELEASED bug so far.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for polite-licorice-3db33c canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	6392628
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/polite-licorice-3db33c/deploys/69299589002fd50008e695b6

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @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 resolves a critical bug in the flag synchronization API where the JSON response format was incorrect. Previously, flag data was directly returned without being encapsulated under a designated 'flags' key. This fix ensures that all flag data is properly nested, aligning the API's output with the expected structure and preventing potential parsing issues for consumers.

Highlights

• Corrected Sync API Response Format: The SyncFlags and FetchAllFlags gRPC methods now correctly wrap the flag data within a flags key in the JSON response. This addresses a bug introduced in a previous PR where the flag layer was missing from the synchronization response, ensuring the output adheres to the expected format.

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. ↩

[aepfli]

we definitely need to get everything going for #1821 to prevent this issue in the future

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request addresses a bug in the flag sync response format by adding a missing 'flags' layer. The changes in SyncFlags and FetchAllFlags correctly implement this fix. I've suggested a small refactoring to abstract the duplicated logic for creating this response structure into a helper function to improve code maintainability. Additionally, it's worth noting that the existing tests may not be robust enough to catch this kind of structural regression in the JSON response. Strengthening them by unmarshalling and asserting on the response structure could prevent similar issues in the future.

[toddbaert]

Yep, 💯 I found this late last week and was intending to open a bug as well. We need to enhance our testing to run in-process tests to find this - there's much less surface area to test with in-process mode on flagd itself (since evaluation happens in the workload) but it's required to find things like this.

Thanks!

[aepfli]

/gemini review

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes a bug in the flag synchronization response format by adding the missing 'flags' layer. The changes in flagd/pkg/service/flag-sync/handler.go are appropriate. I've included a suggestion to refactor some duplicated code to improve maintainability. Additionally, this PR introduces a significant and beneficial refactoring of the integration tests, moving to a testcontainers-based setup, which is a great improvement for test reliability and isolation. I've noted one minor typo in the new test configuration.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
7 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud