[compatibility] Backward compatibility with references to secrets and globals using the Mustache syntax #515
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… globals using the Mustache syntax
benfrank241
pushed a commit
to vectorize-io/langstream
that referenced
this pull request
May 2, 2024
… globals using the Mustache syntax (LangStream#515)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary:
with #507 old applications that use secrets (so 100% of them) require to be rewritten, it is better to not require it.
This patch adds a small backward compatibility layer that allows to interpret secrets and globals using the Mustache syntax.
Please note that when you use Mustache the result is always a string, so if you have a number or a list, you will see them returned as strings.
The suggested way to refer to a secret is now ${secrets.id.field} and ${globals.variable}