feat: introduce appendix section #199
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Kavindu Dodanduwa <[email protected]>
Kavindu-Dodan
force-pushed
the
feat/appendix-section
branch
from
d8946df to
aabc3aa
Compare
Signed-off-by: Kavindu Dodanduwa <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Kavindu Dodanduwa <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kavindu Dodanduwa <[email protected]>
toddbaert
requested review from
justinabrahms,
jamescarr,
moredip,
federicobond,
dabeeeenster,
beeme1mr,
benjiro,
thiyagu06,
kinyoklion,
tcarrio and
thomaspoignant
Signed-off-by: Kavindu Dodanduwa <[email protected]>
|
Relative to most spec changes, this one seems low risk and high reward. I personally would love to remove the dependency cycle in our SDK repos that results from including the flagd provider. The OFEP was also well-received, so I'm going to merge this EOD unless I hear objections. |
|
Just to check, this would effectively deprecate the caching tests scenarios declared in the e2e test-harness when using the in-memory provider, right? |
Co-authored-by: Federico Bond <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Federico Bond <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]>
Yes, good call. I think the caching tests are no longer relevant, and beyond the scope of what SDKs should be testing. In fact, we may want to move the gherkin suite(s) into their own appendix in the spec and de-emphasize the test-harness repo, which is tightly associated with flagd. |
This PR
Adds an appendix section [1]
Appendix is expected to contain extra information for both OpenFeature maintainers and users
[1] - open-feature/ofep#71 (comment)