fix: Raise if environment_feature_version is None
#5028
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 3 Skipped Deployments
|
🔍 Existing Issues For ReviewYour pull request is modifying functions with the following pre-existing issues: 📄 File: api/features/models.py
Did you find this useful? React with a 👍 or 👎 |
Docker builds report
|
|
Uffizzi Preview |
|
Do we have any idea how we reached the faulty state in the first place? |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5028 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 97.40% 97.40%
=======================================
Files 1192 1192
Lines 41657 41665 +8
=======================================
+ Hits 40574 40582 +8
Misses 1083 1083 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Co-authored-by: Kim Gustyr <kim.gustyr@flagsmith.com>
Co-authored-by: Kim Gustyr <kim.gustyr@flagsmith.com>
No but we did somehow. |
| assert tuple((user["id"], user["group_admin"]) for user in group_2_users) == ( | ||
| (user1.pk, False), | ||
| (user2.pk, True), | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| for user in group_2_users: | ||
| if user["id"] == user1.pk: | ||
| assert user["group_admin"] is False | ||
| continue | ||
| if user["id"] == user2.pk: | ||
| assert user["group_admin"] is True | ||
| continue | ||
| # We should only match the two users. | ||
| assert False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I'm pretty sure using sets will solve this in a neater way:
assert set((user["id"], user["group_admin"]) for user in group_2_users) == {
(user1.pk, False),
(user2.pk, True),
}You won't have to maintain the uncovered assert False line too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh this is a much better approach. Thank you!!
zachaysan
deleted the
fix/raise_if_environment_feature_version_is_none
branch
Changes
Solves this Sentry alert. Elsewhere in this part of the codebase we raise value errors to deal with bad input. Rather than erroring out with a type error that looks like a bug, we should raise an error of our own to deal with it.
How did you test this code?
One new test.