refactor: remove check for feature naming data object

[thomasheartman]

We already check for its presence before doing anything. We don't need to
check it twice (we're not Santa Claus, after all).

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
unleash-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Sep 15, 2023 10:48am
unleash-monorepo-frontend	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Sep 15, 2023 10:48am

[kwasniew]

I played around with some minor refactoring. WDYT?

import { IFeatureNaming } from '../../types/model';

const compileRegex = (pattern: string) => new RegExp(`^${pattern}$`);
const disallowedStrings = [' ', '\\t', '\\s', '\\n', '\\r', '\\f', '\\v'];

// Helper functions for error messages
const whitespaceError = (pattern: string) =>
    `Feature flag names cannot contain whitespace. You've provided a feature flag naming pattern that contains a whitespace character: "${pattern}". Remove any whitespace characters from your pattern.`;

const exampleMismatchError = (example: string, pattern: string) =>
    `You've provided a feature flag naming example ("${example}") that doesn't match your feature flag naming pattern ("${pattern}").`;

const noPatternError = (type: string) =>
    `You've provided a feature flag naming ${type}, but no feature flag naming pattern. You must specify a pattern to use a ${type}.`;

export const checkFeatureNamingData = (featureNaming: IFeatureNaming) => {
    const { pattern, example, description } = featureNaming;
    const errors: string[] = [];

    if (disallowedStrings.some((str) => pattern?.includes(str))) {
        errors.push(whitespaceError(pattern as string));
    }

    if (pattern && example && !compileRegex(pattern).test(example)) {
        errors.push(exampleMismatchError(example, pattern));
    }

    if (!pattern && example) {
        errors.push(noPatternError("example"));
    }

    if (!pattern && description) {
        errors.push(noPatternError("description"));
    }

    return errors.length ? { state: 'invalid', reasons: errors } : { state: 'valid' };
};

export type FeatureNameCheckResult =
    | { state: 'valid' }
    | {
          state: 'invalid';
          invalidNames: Set<string>;
      };

export const checkFeatureFlagNamesAgainstPattern = (featureNames: string[], pattern?: string): FeatureNameCheckResult => {
    if (pattern) {
        const mismatchedNames = featureNames.filter((name) => !compileRegex(pattern).test(name));
        return mismatchedNames.length ? { state: 'invalid', invalidNames: new Set(mismatchedNames) } : { state: 'valid' };
    }
    return { state: 'valid' };
};

[thomasheartman]

I like it! But it does have one issue: the first two checks in checkFeatureNamingData are mutually incompatible. But I can touch that up.

[thomasheartman]

Also, there's some typescript type issues with the return in the checkFeatureNamingData function.

Second, I'm not sure I agree about adding the extra ternary return in checkFeatureFlagNamesAgainstPattern, so I'll leave that off if you don't mind.

Implemented in 05f46f1

[kwasniew]

Love the Santa reference! :D