Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow Unregistered Groups #244

Merged
merged 14 commits into from Mar 12, 2017
Merged

Allow Unregistered Groups #244

merged 14 commits into from Mar 12, 2017

Conversation

jnunemaker
Copy link
Collaborator

This makes it possible to enable/disable groups that are not registered. The use case is API's that are mounted on their own apart from where the groups are registered in the code.

We need to be more flexible with allowing groups that have not been
registered to be enabled/disabled for the case where the Flipper UI or
API is mounted apart from the application code.
I was going to go with strict param, but that felt too generic. Instead,
I'd rather have specific params I think so each instance where someone
wants to be strict or not can be controlled individually.
Seems like an easy way to balloon the registered groups with crap.
@jnunemaker jnunemaker self-assigned this Mar 12, 2017
end

def allow_unregistered_groups?
allow_unregistered_groups = params['allow_unregistered_groups']
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@AlexWheeler if you have any time to look this over, I'd be curious what your thoughts are. It will be a few weeks at least before I do another release, so no rush. I went with a specific param instead of strict. strict would affect everything whereas specific params are more isolated. Specific felt better as a way to make it possible to opt in to specific functionality instead of everything (if there are other things down the road).

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cool, I really like this approach and saw that the adapters implement this now too from #245 ! I agree that specific parameters is a much better idea. I think we still need to do something similar for the preloading in features#get right (so that the adapter can pass a parameter to get all requested features even if they don't exist (avoiding unnecessary queries)?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants