fix: updated context not passed to all hooks #1049
Merged
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
toddbaert
force-pushed
the
fix/hook-ctx
branch
from
6b906b1 to
ec3d4c7
Compare
toddbaert
requested review from
justinabrahms,
beeme1mr,
thisthat,
jonathannorris,
thiyagu06,
kinyoklion,
lopitz,
thomaspoignant and
DBlanchard88
toddbaert
force-pushed
the
fix/hook-ctx
branch
from
ec3d4c7 to
c0e6d0f
Compare
|
@UtkarshSharma2612 feel free to add yourself as a reviewer if you want 🙏 |
toddbaert
commented
Aug 15, 2024
| // assert the connect overrides | ||
| c.getBooleanValue("key", false, invocationCtx, FlagEvaluationOptions.builder().hook(hook).build()); | ||
|
|
||
| // assert the correct overrides in before hook |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This failed before the fix.
toddbaert
commented
Aug 15, 2024
| })); | ||
|
|
||
| // assert the correct overrides in after hook |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This failed before the fix.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1049 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 95.04% 95.27% +0.22%
- Complexity 392 393 +1
============================================
Files 38 38
Lines 888 888
Branches 54 54
============================================
+ Hits 844 846 +2
+ Misses 24 23 -1
+ Partials 20 19 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
toddbaert
commented
Aug 15, 2024
| @@ -503,7 +504,7 @@ public void finallyAfter(HookContext<Boolean> ctx, Map<String, Object> hints) { | |||
| order.verify(hook2).before(captor.capture(), any()); | |||
|
|
|||
| HookContext hc = captor.getValue(); | |||
| assertEquals(hc.getCtx(), ctx); | |||
| assertEquals(hc.getCtx().getTargetingKey(), targetingKey); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The instance of the evaluation context now changes here, but that's not something we guarantee.
kinyoklion
reviewed
Aug 15, 2024
aepfli
approved these changes
Aug 19, 2024
toddbaert
force-pushed
the
fix/hook-ctx
branch
from
74d2189 to
9a004bc
Compare
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]>
toddbaert
force-pushed
the
fix/hook-ctx
branch
from
9a004bc to
9dde9bb
Compare
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]>
|
Kavindu-Dodan
approved these changes
Aug 20, 2024
toddbaert
added a commit
to open-feature/js-sdk
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 23, 2024
There's no bug here, but this adds some asserts for a tricky bug I recently found in the Java SDK: open-feature/java-sdk#1049 Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]>
toddbaert
added a commit
to open-feature/spec
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2025
<!-- Please use this template for your pull request. --> <!-- Please use the sections that you need and delete other sections --> ## This PR <!-- add the description of the PR here --> Add support for the hook-data concept for hooks. Hook-data allows for per-evaluation data to be propagated between hooks. This is especially useful for analytics purposes where you may want to measure things that happen between stages, or you want to do something like create a span in one stage and close it in another. This concept is similar to the `series data` concept for LaunchDarkly hooks. https://github.com/launchdarkly/open-sdk-specs/tree/main/specs/HOOK-hooks#evaluationseriesdata Unlike `series data` the data in this approach is mutable. This is because the `before` stage already has a return value. We could workaround this by specifying a return structure, but it maybe seems more complex. The data is only passed to a specific hook instance, so mutability is not of great concern. Some functional languages may still need to use an immutable with return values approach. I can create an OFEP if we think this merits discussion prior to proposal. ### Related Issues <!-- add here the GitHub issue that this PR resolves if applicable --> Related discussion in a PR comment. open-feature/java-sdk#1049 (comment) --------- Signed-off-by: Ryan Lamb <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Michael Beemer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Lukas Reining <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]>
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.
Fixes an issue where the fully merged and updated context was used in the evaluation, but not in all hooks.
Fixes: #1047