[Rahul-Baradol]

This PR

• adds support for null/missing default values

Related Issues

Fixes #1647

Notes

Points to be noted...

• If there is no defaultValue and no targetting rules, then FlagNotFound is returned
• If targetting doesn't resolve a variant, and there is no defaultValue, then FlagNotFound is returned

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for polite-licorice-3db33c canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	e274865
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/polite-licorice-3db33c/deploys/686ec0a0d6429b00085d080e

[toddbaert]

Hey @Rahul-Baradol, thanks a lot!

This looks like it's on the right track. I think before we can merge it though, we need to update the schema as mentioned in this issue, so configurations like this are seen as valid (that will be a different PR though).

Apart from that, could you add a test or two to assert that FLAG_NOT_FOUND is returned in both of the cases you mention in your description:

Points to be noted...

• If there is no defaultValue and no targetting rules, then FlagNotFound is returned
• If targetting doesn't resolve a variant, and there is no defaultValue, then FlagNotFound is returned

EDIT: Oh, I see you also did open-feature/flagd-schemas#186, great! I will review that as well.

[Rahul-Baradol]

Sure will add tests!

[toddbaert]

@Rahul-Baradol I will update this PR with the new schema once it's released, you won't have to do that, the submodule stuff can get a bit messy.

Just work on adding the test for now. It's no rush though, we might have to delay merging this one until we have some other related work done as well.

[Rahul-Baradol]

Got it!

[beeme1mr]

Thanks,

[toddbaert]

@Rahul-Baradol I've updated the schema submodule to https://github.com/open-feature/flagd-schemas/releases/tag/json%2Fjson-schema-v0.2.12, and I'm merging this. This means you will be able to use this feature locally in flagd. HOWEVER, because we have not yet published the new schema at the canonical location here, editors/validators will still see missing defaultValue's as invalid. This is good for now, since this feature is not yet implemented in most in-process providers.

I've also removed the ! from the title, since this is non-breaking.

Thanks a lot for your help!