feat: context propagation #848
Conversation
|
Wow thanks @ssharaev ! We'll get this reviewed ASAP, but it's KubeCon this week so many maintainers are traveling or will be soon, so patience is appreciated! I'm adding @beeme1mr and @lukas-reining even though they aren't Java maintainers, because they both worked on the context propagation spec. |
toddbaert
requested review from
justinabrahms,
beeme1mr,
thisthat,
thiyagu06,
thomaspoignant,
toddbaert,
lukas-reining and
DBlanchard88
@toddbaert , thank you! |
src/main/java/dev/openfeature/sdk/NoOpTransactionContextPropagator.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Kavindu-Dodan
force-pushed
the
feat/transaction-context
branch
from
cdf2f6f to
d8c39f8
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #848 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 95.30% 95.64% +0.34%
- Complexity 370 384 +14
============================================
Files 34 36 +2
Lines 852 873 +21
Branches 52 52
============================================
+ Hits 812 835 +23
+ Misses 21 20 -1
+ Partials 19 18 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@ssharaev great work 👏
I think this is the right choice. But we should document this fact as well as show how to register
Yes, this is the wrong setup of the test. Thank you for seeing this and fixing it. I left some review comments, please check them. Once done, I can approve this :) |
Kavindu-Dodan
force-pushed
the
feat/transaction-context
branch
from
5394cf4 to
7b96c2f
Compare
|
@ssharaev could you please check the check style failure [1] You can execute them locally with |
ssharaev
force-pushed
the
feat/transaction-context
branch
from
7b96c2f to
0af8a3e
Compare
Yes, of course! |
Kavindu-Dodan
force-pushed
the
feat/transaction-context
branch
from
0af8a3e to
cf87999
Compare
|
LGTM 🙌 Thank you again @ssharaev |
Kavindu-Dodan
force-pushed
the
feat/transaction-context
branch
from
2629d21 to
c888563
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great to me, thanks @ssharaev!
The only thing I would like to change is the test that verifies that the values are actually thread independent.
| contextPropagator.setTransactionContext(firstContext); | ||
| EvaluationContext firstThreadContext = contextPropagator.getTransactionContext(); | ||
| assertSame(firstContext, firstThreadContext); | ||
|
|
||
| FutureTask<EvaluationContext> futureTask = new FutureTask<>(callable); | ||
| Thread thread = new Thread(futureTask); | ||
| thread.start(); | ||
| EvaluationContext secondThreadContext = futureTask.get(); | ||
|
|
||
| assertSame(secondContext, secondThreadContext); | ||
| assertSame(firstContext, firstThreadContext); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here we should also get and assert the value of the firstThreadContext after line 52.
Currently as far as I can tell the test does not verify that firstThreadContext is not changed by the callable in the second thread, as the value of firstThreadContext is read before (line 46) the second thread is started (line 51)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, you're right, line 55 checked nothing. Thank you for finding this!
Replaced it with assertSame(firstContext, contextPropagator.getTransactionContext());
|
@ssharaev I'll give this a thorough review tomorrow. |
Kavindu-Dodan
force-pushed
the
feat/transaction-context
branch
from
c888563 to
8c5ee7e
Compare
| * @param invocationContext invocation context | ||
| * @return merged evaluation context | ||
| */ | ||
| private EvaluationContext mergeEvaluationContext( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I spent time looking through this, and besides the minor point @lukas-reining brought up, it looks very good. Very nice to have this done, thanks so much!
Would you like an invite to the OpenFeature org @ssharaev ? There's no obligation, but it allows us to ping you, etc.
ssharaev
force-pushed
the
feat/transaction-context
branch
from
8c5ee7e to
a7f2af9
Compare
|
@toddbaert , thank you for your review!
Wow, I would be happy to join OpenFeature org, I really love, what you're doing! |
Signed-off-by: Sviatoslav Sharaev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sviatoslav Sharaev <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kavindu Dodanduwa <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sviatoslav Sharaev <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sviatoslav Sharaev <[email protected]>
Kavindu-Dodan
force-pushed
the
feat/transaction-context
branch
from
a7f2af9 to
c33f668
Compare
|
This PR
Related Issues
Fixes #819
Notes
OpenFeatureAPIshould useNoOpTransactionContextPropagatoras a defaultTransactionContextPropagator, or if it can simply benull.FlagEvaluationSpecTest.multi_layer_context_merges_correctly()- attributes were put in the sameHashMaptwice. Have a look at it, please, and if I'm mistaken, I'll revert the changes.