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

feat: playground custom properties are nested #4686

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 14, 2023

Conversation

kwasniew
Copy link
Contributor

@kwasniew kwasniew commented Sep 13, 2023

About the changes

Screenshot 2023-09-13 at 15 22 50

Properties in playground should be copy-paste friendly for the SDK. That's why custom properties are added in nested properties as in the SDKs. The auto-formatting/normalization works when we're adding values with add/replace button.

Important files

Discussion points

Backend code can generate context field combinations on flat and nested property fields. So our input is more forgiving now. The API response stays the same for now with a flat list of properties since I don't want to change the UI table results.

So even if you send

{appName: app1, properties: {customProp: val1}}

In the response you get

{appName:app1, customProp: val1}

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Sep 13, 2023

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
unleash-monorepo-frontend ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Sep 13, 2023 1:26pm
1 Ignored Deployment
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
unleash-docs ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Visit Preview Sep 13, 2023 1:26pm

@@ -58,7 +61,10 @@ export const PlaygroundCodeFieldset: VFC<IPlaygroundCodeFieldsetProps> = ({
try {
const contextValue = JSON.parse(input);

setFieldExist(contextValue[contextField] !== undefined);
setFieldExist(
contextValue[contextField] !== undefined ||
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we need to also check nested properties now

setContext(
JSON.stringify(
{
normalizeCustomContextProperties({
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is where we fix the user input

@@ -1,14 +1,19 @@
type Dict<T> = { [K in keyof T]: string[] };
type Dict<T> = { [K in keyof T]: (string | number)[] };

export const splitByComma = <T extends Record<string, unknown>>(
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it had to change to support nested properties

sessionId: '1,2',
nonString: 2,
properties: {
nonString: 1,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

properly nested custom properties take precedence

Copy link
Contributor

@thomasheartman thomasheartman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me 😄 One question though: what happens if you provide a custom property (in the properties object) with the same name as one of the standard properties?

For instance:

appName: "top-level:
properties: {
  appName: "nested"
}

I know that we can do that with SDKs today, so the SDK handling should be standardized (I hope? 🤔), but is it in line with how you flatten it for the return? What would this be returned as?

appName: "top-level"

or

appName: "nested"

@kwasniew
Copy link
Contributor Author

@thomasheartman raised a slack discussion about it. Currently custom properties always win.

@kwasniew kwasniew merged commit 878780f into main Sep 14, 2023
16 checks passed
@kwasniew kwasniew deleted the playground-properties-nested branch September 14, 2023 10:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants