feat: add targeting validation

[olunusib]

This PR

• adds targeting validation
• updates sample json files
• updates schemas modules to most recent release

Related Issues

Closes #1140

Notes

Follow-up Tasks

How to test

[netlify]

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

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	b4ac675
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/polite-licorice-3db33c/deploys/65a69bc2b8809e0008a678b8

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 7 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (2adfa57) 73.53% compared to head (b4ac675) 73.38%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
core/pkg/evaluator/json.go	66.66%	5 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1146      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.53%   73.38%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          32       32              
  Lines        3113     3130      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits         2289     2297       +8     
- Misses        717      723       +6     
- Partials      107      110       +3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[toddbaert]

Hey @olunusib , nice job so far!

Please note I have just released a new schema, which fixed some bugs (I don't think it will conflict with any of your changes). Could you update the submodule again to this version?

[toddbaert]

Hey @olunusib , nice job so far!

Please note I have just released a new schema, which fixed some bugs (I don't think it will conflict with any of your changes). Could you update the submodule again to this version?

Oh wow you already did! Thanks!

[olunusib]

This PR contains a lot of logging changes and I noticed there aren't existing tests for logger functionality. Setting up mocks for the logger is quite involved, especially since an ideal solution would involve a project-wide approach or a method defined in a common location accessible across the project, not just for the file I'm editing. The code coverage bot is highlighting the untested lines though so given this, are we okay with proceeding without logger-specific tests for now, or are there any recommendations for a straightforward, scalable approach to mocking the logs?

[Kavindu-Dodan]

This PR contains a lot of logging changes and I noticed there aren't existing tests for logger functionality. Setting up mocks for the logger is quite involved, especially since an ideal solution would involve a project-wide approach or a method defined in a common location accessible across the project, not just for the file I'm editing. The code coverage bot is highlighting the untested lines though so given this, are we okay with proceeding without logger-specific tests for now, or are there any recommendations for a straightforward, scalable approach to mocking the logs?

Hi, thank you for the contribution. Yes, code coverage complain as we are not covering the condition, where we handle error with a log.

A good way to address this is to add few invalid targeting rules to existing test suites ¹ and expect them to parse. This will make the condition to evaluate (cause parsing error, log but continue), making the validation green. Also, this makes sure that our logic is correct - log and continue on targeting parsing errors.

Footnotes

1. https://github.com/open-feature/flagd/blob/main/core/pkg/evaluator/json_test.go ↩

[olunusib]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have added some configs with invalid targeting rules. Code coverage seems happy now.

[toddbaert]

Great work! Only minor suggestions for adding some in-line comments around the less-obvious JSON schema parsing, and a slight improvement to one of the warning logs.

[toddbaert]

@olunusib don't worry about the coverage now. There's some kind of odd jitter in it that I dont' understand (might be because we're stuck on an old version for now).