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

Bulk Evaluation Doesn't Return Variant Information #263

Closed
MrThreepwood opened this issue May 28, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

Bulk Evaluation Doesn't Return Variant Information #263

MrThreepwood opened this issue May 28, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@MrThreepwood
Copy link

Expected Behavior

I would expect that the bulk evaluation endpoint would return the same results as the individual evaluation endpoint.

Current Behavior

It returns the matched segment ID, but none of the variant information.

Steps to Reproduce (for bugs)

Always occurs on using bulk evaluate.

Context

We were hoping to load all flag data into our apps on launch to reduce network calls. At the moment, it looks like we'll need to make a network call per flag.

@zhouzhuojie
Copy link
Collaborator

Hey @MrThreepwood

I can't reproduce from debug console and other API calls. You can try it on https://try-flagr.herokuapp.com/#/flags/1
image

Maybe, it related to https://github.com/checkr/flagr/releases/tag/1.1.0, instead of returning null, the fields are ignored now in the payload of goswagger generated code.

@MrThreepwood
Copy link
Author

MrThreepwood commented May 28, 2019

Sorry, I thought that it matched a segment since it was including the segment in the response (and the one for an invalid flagKey did not), but I didn't have a state, so it didn't match the segment. After matching the segment I am indeed getting the variant back. (state = CA).

I do think if the request doesn't actually match a segment it probably shouldn't return one however. In the code it looks like it's just setting the segment to the last one evaluated. It makes more sense to me to only set it if it actually matches.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants