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

chore: update sdks, absorb changes #1119

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 23, 2024
Merged

chore: update sdks, absorb changes #1119

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 23, 2024

Conversation

toddbaert
Copy link
Member

@toddbaert toddbaert commented Dec 18, 2024

  • updates the SDKs, particularly important for the recent breaking mentioned here (only the multiproviders are impacted)
  • updates generator templates

cc @ajwootto @emmawillis

@toddbaert toddbaert requested a review from a team as a code owner December 18, 2024 20:01
@toddbaert toddbaert marked this pull request as draft December 18, 2024 20:01
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
@toddbaert toddbaert changed the title wip chore: update sdks, absorb changes Dec 18, 2024
@toddbaert toddbaert marked this pull request as ready for review December 18, 2024 20:42
@toddbaert
Copy link
Member Author

@lukas-reining @jonathannorris @emmawillis @ajwootto @beeme1mr

We've had some interest in the multi-providers in general - some people have specifically requested them in languages which don't yet implement them. This, combined win the fact we've had to duplicate some SDK logic in them here (running hooks) makes me think it's a good idea to actually move these into the SDK-proper. This would allow us to more easily share logic from the SDK, reduce duplication, and have access to internals which would make things much easier. The spec heavily implies that multi-providers are included in the SDK as well: https://openfeature.dev/specification/appendix-a#multi-provider

If everyone is amenable to it, I'll create an issue to move them in.

Also - @emmawillis and @ajwootto - I think I opened some org invites for you guys some time ago, but they've been closed. If you're interested in being in the org please let me know and I'll invite you guys (no obligation).

@lukas-reining
Copy link
Member

@lukas-reining @jonathannorris @emmawillis @ajwootto @beeme1mr

We've had some interest in the multi-providers in general - some people have specifically requested them in languages which don't yet implement them. This, combined win the fact we've had to duplicate some SDK logic in them here (running hooks) makes me think it's a good idea to actually move these into the SDK-proper. This would allow us to more easily share logic from the SDK, reduce duplication, and have access to internals which would make things much easier. The spec heavily implies that multi-providers are included in the SDK as well: https://openfeature.dev/specification/appendix-a#multi-provider

If everyone is amenable to it, I'll create an issue to move them in.

Also - @emmawillis and @ajwootto - I think I opened some org invites for you guys some time ago, but they've been closed. If you're interested in being in the org please let me know and I'll invite you guys (no obligation).

This makes sense to me @toddbaert. So from my side let's go for this.

@jonathannorris
Copy link
Member

yea makes sense to me to move it.

@toddbaert toddbaert merged commit 456be7c into main Dec 23, 2024
9 of 10 checks passed
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants