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

Fix usage of wrong type instead of resolution details #161

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 2, 2022

Conversation

humb1t
Copy link
Contributor

@humb1t humb1t commented Nov 13, 2022

Evaluation details and flag evaluation names usages for resolution details type were fixed.

Signed-off-by: Nikita Bishonen [email protected]

This PR

In documentation regarding Provider different names were used instead of resolution details. This PR removes wrong or out of date names.

Related Issues

Notes

Follow-up Tasks

How to test

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member

toddbaert commented Nov 14, 2022

@humb1t thanks!

This seems like a good editorial change. At some point the structure's name was changed I think, and we missed these. Most SDKs (JS, Go, .NET) reference this structure by the name in the proposed change. Java uses ProviderEvaluation for the provider method return type, but that doesn't match the existing name exactly either, so overall this should reduce confusion.

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member

@humb1t could you run make parse as well? This will update the specificataion.json with your changes, which you should commit as well.

@beeme1mr
Copy link
Member

Hi @humb1t, thanks for the PR. Would you be able update the JSON by running make parse? It would be great to get this change into the spec.

@beeme1mr
Copy link
Member

Hi @humb1t, would you be able to run the json synchronizer and resolve Todd's comment?

humb1t and others added 2 commits December 2, 2022 09:54
Evaluation details and flag evaluation names usages for resolution details type were fixed.

Signed-off-by: Nikita Bishonen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]>
@toddbaert
Copy link
Member

@humb1t I've pushed a commit to your branch that updates the JSON. I hope you don't mind.

@toddbaert toddbaert merged commit 136c26a into open-feature:main Dec 2, 2022
@humb1t
Copy link
Contributor Author

humb1t commented Jan 31, 2023

Thank you a lot @toddbaert - had a really tough times and glad that you helped with merging this PR 💜

@humb1t humb1t deleted the patch-1 branch January 31, 2023 13:58
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.

4 participants