feat: playground api returns removed context values under a new warnings property
#6784
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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 2 Ignored Deployments
|
![codescene-delta-analysis[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/53921?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
thomasheartman
changed the title
warnings property
kwasniew
reviewed
Apr 5, 2024
|
|
||
| // verify that the two lists contain all the same elements | ||
| expect(removedProperties).toEqual( | ||
| expect.arrayContaining(invalidProperties), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it because the order is not predictable? for predictable order I'd do simple equal
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't checked the order, to be honest. I could, but it's not something that I think we can intrinsically rely on; we might want to sort it alphabetically or something later 🤷🏼 I don't think that should cause the tests to fail. So this just seemed like a more robust way to check it.
kwasniew
approved these changes
Apr 5, 2024
|
Yes, that's the plan. Create a follow-up PR that exposes this data in the UI if it's present. |
thomasheartman
deleted the
feat/return-removed-properties-in-playground-response
branch
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR expands upon #6773 by returning the list of removed properties in the API response. To achieve this, I added a new top-level
warningskey to the API response and added aninvalidContextPropertiesproperty under it. This is a list with the keys that were removed.Discussion points
Should we return the type of each removed key's value? We could expand upon this by also returning the type that was considered invalid for the property, e.g.
invalidProp: 'object'. This would give us more information that we could display to the user. However, I'm not sure it's useful? We already return the input as-is, so you can always cross-check. And the only type we allow for non-propertiestop-level properties isstring. Does it give any useful info? I think if we want to display this in the UI, we might be better off cross-referencing with the input?Can properties be invalid for any other reason? As far as I can tell, that's the only reason properties can be invalid for the context. OpenAPI will prevent you from using a type other than string for the context fields we have defined and does not let you add non-string properties to the
propertiesobject. So all we have to deal with are top-level properties. And as long as they are strings, then they should be valid.Should we instead infer the diff when creating the model? In this first approach, I've amended the
clean-contextfunction to also return the list of context fields it has removed. The downside to this approach is that we need to thread it through a few more hoops. Another approach would be to compare the input context with the context used to evaluate one of the features when we create the view model and derive the missing keys from that. This would probably work in 98 percent of cases. However, if your result contains no flags, then we can't calculate the diff. But maybe that's alright? It would likely be fewer lines of code (but might require additional testing), although picking an environment from feels hacky.