[Components] launchdarkly - new components #14742
Conversation
jcortes
added
action
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 3 Skipped Deployments
|
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several new modules and enhancements for the LaunchDarkly integration, including actions for evaluating, toggling, and updating feature flags, as well as handling webhook events for access tokens, flags, and users. Additionally, it adds utility functions and constants to support these actions, providing a comprehensive interface for managing feature flags and webhooks within the LaunchDarkly ecosystem. Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 13
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (12)
components/launchdarkly/sources/new-flag-event/new-flag-event.mjs (1)
7-7: Enhance component documentationWhile the description includes an API link, consider adding more details about:
- The specific flag activities that trigger this event
- The structure of the emitted event payload
- Examples of common use cases
components/launchdarkly/sources/new-user-event/new-user-event.mjs (1)
13-25: Consider more specific permissions instead of wildcards.The current implementation uses wildcards (*) for both resources and actions, which might be too permissive. Consider:
- Explicitly listing required actions instead of "*"
- Using more specific resource patterns if possible
getStatements() { return [{ resources: [ - "proj/*:env/*:user/*", + "proj/*:env/*:user/view", + "proj/*:env/*:user/modify" ], actions: [ - "*", + "read", + "write" ], effect: "allow", }]; }components/launchdarkly/common/utils.mjs (3)
3-11: Consider enhancing JSON type validationThe function validates JSON syntax but doesn't distinguish between JSON arrays and objects. Since this utility is primarily used for object validation, consider adding type checking.
function isJson(value) { try { - JSON.parse(value); + const parsed = JSON.parse(value); + return typeof parsed === 'object' && !Array.isArray(parsed); } catch (e) { return false; } - - return true; }
25-46: Improve error handling specificityThe error messages could be more descriptive to help users understand and fix issues more easily.
function parseArray(value) { try { if (!value) { return []; } if (Array.isArray(value)) { return value; } const parsedValue = JSON.parse(value); if (!Array.isArray(parsedValue)) { - throw new Error("Not an array"); + throw new Error(`Expected an array but received ${typeof parsedValue}`); } return parsedValue; } catch (e) { - throw new ConfigurationError("Make sure the custom expression contains a valid array object"); + throw new ConfigurationError( + e.message === `Expected an array but received ${typeof parsedValue}` + ? e.message + : `Invalid JSON array. Please ensure the input is a valid JSON array. Error: ${e.message}` + ); } }
1-50: Consider migrating to TypeScript for improved type safetyGiven that this module handles critical data transformations for feature flags, consider migrating to TypeScript. This would provide:
- Compile-time type checking
- Better IDE support
- Self-documenting interfaces
- Improved maintainability
Example TypeScript interface:
interface JsonUtils { parseArray(value: string | unknown[]): Record<string, unknown>[]; }components/launchdarkly/sources/new-access-token-event/new-access-token-event.mjs (1)
5-10: Enhance the component description for clarity.The current description is somewhat vague about what constitutes "access token activity". Consider elaborating on the specific types of access token events this component will emit (e.g., creation, deletion, modification).
- description: "Emit new event when a new access token activity happens. [See the documentation](https://apidocs.launchdarkly.com/tag/Webhooks#operation/postWebhook).", + description: "Emit new events when access token activities (creation, deletion, modification) occur in your LaunchDarkly account. [See the documentation](https://apidocs.launchdarkly.com/tag/Webhooks#operation/postWebhook).",components/launchdarkly/actions/toggle-feature-flag/toggle-feature-flag.mjs (1)
9-38: Consider adding prop validation for better type safety.The props configuration is well-structured with proper dependency chains. Consider adding type validation to ensure data integrity.
Add type and required fields:
props: { app, projectKey: { propDefinition: [ app, "project", ], + type: "string", + required: true, }, // Add similar type and required fields for other props },components/launchdarkly/actions/update-feature-flag/update-feature-flag.mjs (3)
1-9: LGTM! Consider starting with version 1.0.0The component definition is well-structured with proper documentation links. However, since this is a production-ready component, consider starting with version 1.0.0 instead of 0.0.1 to indicate stability.
- version: "0.0.1", + version: "1.0.0",
64-89: Enhance error handling and success messageThe current implementation could benefit from:
- Proper error handling for API calls
- More informative success message including the flag key
async run({ $ }) { const { app, projectKey, featureFlagKey, patch, ignoreConflicts, comment, } = this; + try { const response = await app.updateFeatureFlag({ $, projectKey, featureFlagKey, params: { ignoreConflicts, }, data: { patch: utils.parseArray(patch), comment, }, }); - $.export("$summary", "Successfully updated feature flag"); + $.export("$summary", `Successfully updated feature flag '${featureFlagKey}'`); return response; + } catch (error) { + throw new Error(`Failed to update feature flag: ${error.message}`); + } },
1-90: Consider adding retry logic for API resilienceAs this component is part of a larger LaunchDarkly integration handling critical feature flag updates, consider implementing retry logic for transient API failures. This could be particularly important when dealing with concurrent updates or network issues.
Would you like assistance in implementing a retry mechanism using exponential backoff?
components/launchdarkly/actions/evaluate-feature-flag/evaluate-feature-flag.mjs (1)
102-102: Enhance the summary message with more contextThe current summary message could be more informative by including the flag key and context details.
- $.export("$summary", `Successfully evaluated feature flag with \`${response.items.length}\` item(s).`); + $.export("$summary", `Successfully evaluated feature flag for context kind '${contextKind}' with \`${response.items.length}\` evaluation(s).`);components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs (1)
144-146: Clarify the use of$ = thisin function parametersAssigning
$ = thisin the function parameters of_makeRequestcan be confusing and may affect readability. Consider passingthisdirectly when callingaxiosor renaming the parameter to improve clarity.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
components/launchdarkly/actions/evaluate-feature-flag/evaluate-feature-flag.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/actions/toggle-feature-flag/toggle-feature-flag.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/actions/update-feature-flag/update-feature-flag.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/common/constants.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/common/utils.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/package.json(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/sources/common/webhook.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/sources/new-access-token-event/new-access-token-event.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/sources/new-flag-event/new-flag-event.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/sources/new-user-event/new-user-event.mjs(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- components/launchdarkly/common/constants.mjs
- components/launchdarkly/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (14)
components/launchdarkly/sources/new-flag-event/new-flag-event.mjs (1)
3-10: Consider more specific resource permissions
The component configuration looks good overall, but the permission scope might be too broad. Consider restricting the resource pattern to only the necessary flag-related events for better security.
Let's verify the available resource patterns in the LaunchDarkly API docs:
components/launchdarkly/sources/new-user-event/new-user-event.mjs (2)
1-4: LGTM! Good use of common webhook functionality.
The implementation properly extends the common webhook module, promoting code reuse and maintainability.
5-10: Verify implementation approach and documentation completeness.
A few concerns need verification:
- The PR objectives mention this should be a "polling source", but it's implemented as a webhook source. Please confirm if this is intentional.
- The description should document the optional
activity_typeparameter mentioned in the PR objectives (e.g., login, logout).
components/launchdarkly/common/utils.mjs (1)
48-50: Add JSDoc documentation and verify error handling
The exported function combines multiple operations but lacks documentation. Also, verify the error handling cascade between parseArray and valueToObject.
+/**
+ * Parses a value into an array of objects.
+ * @param {string|Array} value - The input value to parse
+ * @returns {Array<Object>} An array of parsed objects
+ * @throws {ConfigurationError} If the input is invalid or cannot be parsed
+ */
export default {
parseArray: (value) => parseArray(value).map(valueToObject),
};Let's verify the error handling:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
Add JSDoc documentation and ensure error handling is consistent with other utils
The exported function combines parseArray and valueToObject functions, which are used consistently throughout the codebase for array parsing and object conversion. The implementation follows the established pattern seen in other components, where parseArray handles null/empty values by returning an empty array and valueToObject handles object conversion.
+/**
+ * Parses a value into an array of objects.
+ * @param {string|Array} value - The input value to parse
+ * @returns {Array<Object>} An array of parsed objects
+ * @throws {Error} If the input cannot be parsed as JSON when in string format
+ */
export default {
parseArray: (value) => parseArray(value).map(valueToObject),
};🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for usage of these utility functions to ensure errors are properly handled
# Search for imports and usage of the utils module
rg -l "from.*utils.*import|import.*utils" --type js
rg -A 3 "parseArray|valueToObject|isJson" --type js
Length of output: 107
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive search with different patterns and file extensions
# First, let's find all JavaScript/TypeScript files that might import from utils
rg -l "utils" --type-add 'jslike:*.{js,jsx,ts,tsx,mjs}' -t jslike
# Then search for the specific function names with context
rg -A 3 "parseArray|valueToObject" --type-add 'jslike:*.{js,jsx,ts,tsx,mjs}' -t jslike
# Let's also look at the implementation of these functions
ast-grep --pattern 'function parseArray($_) { $$$ }'
ast-grep --pattern 'function valueToObject($_) { $$$ }'
ast-grep --pattern 'const parseArray = $_'
ast-grep --pattern 'const valueToObject = $_'
Length of output: 100665
components/launchdarkly/sources/new-access-token-event/new-access-token-event.mjs (5)
1-4: LGTM! Good use of common functionality.
The module correctly imports and extends the common webhook functionality, promoting code reuse and maintainability.
35-45: LGTM! Well-structured metadata generation.
The generateMeta method correctly extracts and formats the required fields for event emission, providing proper deduplication and event ordering capabilities.
11-19: Verify the memberId prop definition in the app.
The code references a memberId prop definition from the app. Let's verify this exists and is properly defined.
✅ Verification successful
The memberId prop definition exists and is properly defined
The memberId prop definition is correctly defined in the app file (components/launchdarkly/app.mjs). It's a string prop with proper label, description, and async options method that fetches member data from the LaunchDarkly API.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if memberId prop definition exists in the app file
# Expected: Should find the memberId property definition in the app file
rg -A 5 'memberId.*:.*{' components/launchdarkly/
Length of output: 143
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find the memberId prop definition
# First, let's check the app.mjs file content
fd "app.mjs" components/launchdarkly/ --exec cat {}
# As a backup, let's also search for memberId using a simpler pattern
rg "memberId" components/launchdarkly/ --type js --type mjs
Length of output: 5422
1-47: Verify access_token property requirement from PR objectives.
The PR objectives mention that this component should require the access_token property, but this requirement isn't explicitly visible in the implementation. Please verify if this requirement is handled by the common webhook implementation or needs to be added.
22-34: Review the broad permissions in getStatements.
The method allows all actions ("*") on the token resources. Consider if this broad access is necessary or if it should be limited to specific actions needed for token events.
✅ Verification successful
Broad permissions are appropriate for this webhook event source
The "*" action permission is appropriate in this context because:
- This is a webhook event source that needs to listen for any token-related activities
- The scope is already properly restricted to only token resources for a specific member (
member/${this.memberId}:token/*) - The component is specifically designed to monitor access token events as indicated by its description and documentation
- The permission follows the principle of least privilege by limiting the resource scope while allowing all actions within that specific scope
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if other components use similar broad permissions
# Expected: Compare permission patterns across components
rg -B 2 -A 5 '"actions":\s*\[\s*"\*"\s*\]' components/launchdarkly/
Length of output: 69
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to search for permission patterns
# Search for getStatements method implementations in LaunchDarkly components
ast-grep --pattern 'getStatements() {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 48
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Also search for any actions array definitions to compare permission patterns
rg -B 2 -A 5 '"actions":\s*\[' components/launchdarkly/
Length of output: 57
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's also check if there are any specific token-related actions defined
rg -i 'token.*action' components/launchdarkly/
Length of output: 48
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the LaunchDarkly API documentation or configuration files
fd -t f . components/launchdarkly/ -x cat {} | grep -B 2 -A 2 -i "token"
Length of output: 741
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's also check the component's documentation or README
fd "README.md" components/launchdarkly/ -x cat {}
Length of output: 1455
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the source file directly to understand the context better
cat components/launchdarkly/sources/new-access-token-event/new-access-token-event.mjs
Length of output: 1089
components/launchdarkly/actions/toggle-feature-flag/toggle-feature-flag.mjs (2)
1-8: LGTM! Well-structured component metadata.
The component metadata is well-defined with clear naming, appropriate versioning, and helpful documentation links.
54-71: Verify LaunchDarkly API compatibility.
Let's verify the semantic patch format and required headers for the LaunchDarkly API.
✅ Verification successful
API implementation is correct and consistent
The semantic patch format and headers used in the toggle-feature-flag action are correct and align with LaunchDarkly's API requirements. The implementation:
- Uses the correct Content-Type header for semantic patch operations
- Properly structures the instruction with
turnFlagOn/turnFlagOffoperations - Follows the same pattern as other API calls in the codebase
- Utilizes the common app layer's
updateFeatureFlagmethod consistently
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other LaunchDarkly API calls to ensure consistent header usage
rg -l "launchdarkly.*semanticpatch" .
# Check for any API-related constants or utilities
rg -l "Content-Type.*launchdarkly" .
Length of output: 234
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the LaunchDarkly API documentation or configuration files
fd -e md -e json . | xargs rg -l "launchdarkly.*api"
# Check for any API-related tests or examples
rg -A 5 "updateFeatureFlag" .
# Look for any other semantic patch operations
rg "kind.*(?:turnFlagOn|turnFlagOff)" .
Length of output: 1872
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the LaunchDarkly app implementation for patch method
cat ./components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs
# Check the update-feature-flag action for comparison
cat ./components/launchdarkly/actions/update-feature-flag/update-feature-flag.mjs
Length of output: 7704
components/launchdarkly/actions/update-feature-flag/update-feature-flag.mjs (1)
74-85:
Add validation for patch operations
The current implementation lacks validation for patch operations, which could potentially allow dangerous operations. Consider adding validation before applying the patch.
Let's check if other LaunchDarkly components implement patch validation:
components/launchdarkly/actions/evaluate-feature-flag/evaluate-feature-flag.mjs (2)
3-106: Implementation aligns with PR objectives
The component successfully implements the "evaluate-feature-flag" action as specified in the PR objectives. It provides a well-structured interface for evaluating LaunchDarkly feature flags with proper project, environment, and context handling.
7-7: Verify semantic versioning strategy
The initial version is set to "0.0.1". Ensure this aligns with your team's versioning strategy for new components.
✅ Verification successful
Version "0.0.1" is consistent with other LaunchDarkly components
The version number "0.0.1" aligns perfectly with the versioning pattern used across all other LaunchDarkly components in the codebase, including both sources and actions. This is the standard initial version for new components in this integration.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check versioning patterns in other LaunchDarkly components
rg -g 'components/launchdarkly/**/*.{js,mjs}' 'version: "[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+"' -A 1
Length of output: 1223
components/launchdarkly/actions/toggle-feature-flag/toggle-feature-flag.mjs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
components/launchdarkly/actions/evaluate-feature-flag/evaluate-feature-flag.mjs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
jcortes
force-pushed
the
launchdarkly-new-components
branch
from
0b9e743
to
bba2951
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs (3)
36-38: Enhance error handling in prop optionsThe empty array fallbacks for missing dependencies are good, but consider adding more informative error messages to help users understand why options are unavailable.
Example enhancement:
- if (!projectKey) { - return []; - } + if (!projectKey) { + console.warn('Project key is required to load environment options'); + return []; + }Also applies to: 58-60, 83-85, 105-107
133-135: Enhance URL path construction safetyThe
getUrlmethod should ensure path starts with a forward slash and handle potential double slashes.Consider implementing:
getUrl(path) { - return `${constants.BASE_URL}${constants.VERSION_PATH}${path}`; + const cleanPath = path.startsWith('/') ? path : `/${path}`; + return `${constants.BASE_URL}${constants.VERSION_PATH}${cleanPath}`.replace(/([^:]\/)\/+/g, '$1'); }
4-6: Add JSDoc documentation for the app exportConsider adding JSDoc documentation to describe the app's purpose and configuration requirements.
Example:
+/** + * LaunchDarkly app component for managing feature flags and contexts + * @app launchdarkly + * @type app + * @see {@link https://docs.launchdarkly.com/home/getting-started LaunchDarkly Documentation} + */ export default { type: "app", app: "launchdarkly",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
components/launchdarkly/actions/evaluate-feature-flag/evaluate-feature-flag.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/actions/toggle-feature-flag/toggle-feature-flag.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/actions/update-feature-flag/update-feature-flag.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/common/constants.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/common/utils.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/package.json(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/sources/common/webhook.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/sources/new-access-token-event/new-access-token-event.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/sources/new-flag-event/new-flag-event.mjs(1 hunks)components/launchdarkly/sources/new-user-event/new-user-event.mjs(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (9)
- components/launchdarkly/actions/evaluate-feature-flag/evaluate-feature-flag.mjs
- components/launchdarkly/actions/toggle-feature-flag/toggle-feature-flag.mjs
- components/launchdarkly/common/constants.mjs
- components/launchdarkly/common/utils.mjs
- components/launchdarkly/package.json
- components/launchdarkly/sources/common/webhook.mjs
- components/launchdarkly/sources/new-access-token-event/new-access-token-event.mjs
- components/launchdarkly/sources/new-flag-event/new-flag-event.mjs
- components/launchdarkly/sources/new-user-event/new-user-event.mjs
🔇 Additional comments (8)
components/launchdarkly/actions/update-feature-flag/update-feature-flag.mjs (4)
1-9: LGTM! Component metadata and imports are well-structured.
The component is properly defined with clear documentation and appropriate version numbering for a new component.
39-50: Consider using object[] type for patch operations
The current implementation using string[] requires manual JSON parsing and validation. Consider using object[] type instead for better type safety and validation.
11-38: LGTM! Props structure is well-designed.
The props are well-structured with:
- Clear dependencies between project, environment, and flag selections
- Comprehensive descriptions
- Appropriate optional flags
Also applies to: 51-63
74-85: Verify API permissions and endpoint compatibility
Ensure that:
- The component has appropriate error handling for permission-related failures
- The API endpoint version is compatible with the LaunchDarkly SDK version being used
✅ Verification successful
API integration is properly implemented with sufficient error handling
The code review reveals:
- The component uses the official LaunchDarkly API v2 (via
constants.VERSION_PATH) - Permission-related failures are handled by the platform's axios instance
- The API endpoint
/flags/{projectKey}/{featureFlagKey}is correctly implemented - The component includes proper error handling through:
- Axios error handling at the platform level
- Parameter validation through prop definitions
- Conflict detection with
ignoreConflictsparameter
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for SDK version compatibility in package.json
rg -A 5 "launchdarkly" package.json
# Look for similar API endpoint usage patterns
rg -l "updateFeatureFlag|patchFeatureFlag" components/launchdarkly/
Length of output: 302
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation of updateFeatureFlag in the app file
ast-grep --pattern 'async updateFeatureFlag($_) {
$$$
}' components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs
# Check error handling in the update action
ast-grep --pattern 'try {
$$$
} catch($_) {
$$$
}' components/launchdarkly/actions/update-feature-flag/update-feature-flag.mjs
# Look for API version configuration
rg -A 3 "baseUrl|version" components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs
Length of output: 311
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try to get the content of these files directly
cat components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs
cat components/launchdarkly/actions/update-feature-flag/update-feature-flag.mjs
# Also check for any error handling patterns or API configurations in the app file
rg -A 5 "throw|error|catch" components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs
Length of output: 7754
components/launchdarkly/launchdarkly.app.mjs (4)
136-142:
The Authorization header requires the Bearer prefix
The Authorization header should include the 'Bearer' prefix according to LaunchDarkly API standards.
Apply this fix:
- "Authorization": this.$auth.access_token,
+ "Authorization": `Bearer ${this.$auth.access_token}`,143-151: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling to API requests
The _makeRequest method should include error handling to provide meaningful feedback for API failures.
Consider implementing:
_makeRequest({
$ = this, path, headers, ...args
} = {}) {
- return axios($, {
- ...args,
- url: this.getUrl(path),
- headers: this.getHeaders(headers),
- });
+ try {
+ return axios($, {
+ ...args,
+ url: this.getUrl(path),
+ headers: this.getHeaders(headers),
+ });
+ } catch (error) {
+ const status = error.response?.status;
+ const message = error.response?.data?.message || error.message;
+ throw new Error(`LaunchDarkly API request failed: ${status} - ${message}`);
+ }
}1-2: Verify the constants file and its exports
Let's ensure the constants file exists and contains the required BASE_URL and VERSION_PATH.
✅ Verification successful
Constants file exists and exports the required values
The verification confirms that ./common/constants.mjs exists and properly exports the necessary constants including BASE_URL and VERSION_PATH that are typically required for API integration. The import statement is valid and the constants file provides all expected values.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify constants file exists and contains required exports
cat components/launchdarkly/common/constants.mjs
Length of output: 261
184-191: Verify feature flags endpoint path format
The feature flags endpoint path format differs from other endpoints. Verify this is the correct format according to LaunchDarkly's API documentation.
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the LaunchDarkly API documentation format by searching for any README or API documentation in the repository.
Let me search for LaunchDarkly API documentation or references in the codebase to verify the endpoint format.
Let me search for all API endpoint patterns in the LaunchDarkly component to understand the format consistency.
Feature flags endpoint format is consistent with LaunchDarkly API patterns
Looking at the codebase, the /flags/${projectKey} endpoint format is consistent with other LaunchDarkly API endpoints. The pattern follows the same structure as other endpoints like /projects/${projectKey}/environments and /flags/${projectKey}/${featureFlagKey}, where resource types are used as the primary path segment followed by identifiers.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for other usages of feature flags endpoint to verify format
rg -A 2 '/flags/' components/launchdarkly/
Length of output: 1041
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for documentation files that might contain API endpoint information
fd -e md -e txt | grep -i 'api\|doc\|readme' | xargs cat
Length of output: 103592
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for LaunchDarkly API endpoint patterns in the codebase
rg -A 2 "path: .*launchdarkly" components/launchdarkly/
Length of output: 57
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all path patterns in LaunchDarkly component
rg -A 2 'path: `.*`' components/launchdarkly/
Length of output: 1961
components/launchdarkly/actions/update-feature-flag/update-feature-flag.mjs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
/approve |
WHY
Resolves #13205
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Enhancements
Documentation