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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

add reasons, table #140

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 23, 2022
Merged

add reasons, table #140

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion specification.json
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@
{
"id": "Requirement 2.6",
"machine_id": "requirement_2_6",
"content": "The `provider` SHOULD populate the `flag resolution` structure's `reason` field with a string indicating the semantic reason for the returned flag value.",
"content": "The `provider` SHOULD populate the `flag resolution` structure's `reason` field with `\"DEFAULT\",` `\"TARGETING_MATCH\"`, `\"SPLIT\"`, `\"DISABLED\"`, `\"UNKNOWN\"`, `\"ERROR\"` or some other string indicating the semantic reason for the returned flag value.",
"RFC 2119 keyword": "SHOULD",
"children": []
},
Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions specification/sections/02-providers.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -75,9 +75,9 @@ The value of the variant field might only be meaningful in the context of the fl

##### Requirement 2.6

> The `provider` **SHOULD** populate the `flag resolution` structure's `reason` field with a string indicating the semantic reason for the returned flag value.
> The `provider` **SHOULD** populate the `flag resolution` structure's `reason` field with `"DEFAULT",` `"TARGETING_MATCH"`, `"SPLIT"`, `"DISABLED"`, `"UNKNOWN"`, `"ERROR"` or some other string indicating the semantic reason for the returned flag value.

Possible values vary by provider, but might include such values as `"TARGETING_MATCH"`, `"SPLIT"`, `"DISABLED"`, `"DEFAULT"`, `"UNKNOWN"` or `"ERROR"`.
As indicated in the definition of the [`flag resolution`](../types.md#resolution-details) structure, the `reason` should be a string. This allows providers to reflect accurately why a flag was resolved to a particular value.

##### Requirement 2.7

Expand Down
11 changes: 11 additions & 0 deletions specification/types.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -49,6 +49,17 @@ A structure which contains a subset of the fields defined in the `evaluation det
- reason (string, optional)
toddbaert marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- variant (string, optional)

A set of pre-defined reasons is enumerated below:

| Reason | Explanation |
| --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| DEFAULT | The resolved value was configured statically, or otherwise fell back to a pre-configured value. |
| TARGETING_MATCH | The resolved value was the result of a dynamic evaluation, such as a rule or specific user-targeting. |
| SPLIT | The resolved value was the result of pseudorandom assignment. |
| DISABLED | The resolved value was the result of the flag being disabled in the management system. |
| UNKNOWN | The reason for the resolved value could not be determined. |
| ERROR | The resolved value was the result of an error. |

> NOTE: The `resolution details` structure is not exposed to the Application Author. It defines the data which Provider Authors must return when resolving the value of flags.

### Evaluation Options
Expand Down