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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

chore: update test/spec association numbers, badge #156

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 17, 2022
Merged

chore: update test/spec association numbers, badge #156

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c5ca187
chore: update test/spec association numbers
toddbaert Oct 17, 2022
b44bb14
chore: update spec tag
toddbaert Oct 17, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
[![Maven Central](https://maven-badges.herokuapp.com/maven-central/dev.openfeature/sdk/badge.svg)](https://maven-badges.herokuapp.com/maven-central/dev.openfeature/sdk)
[![javadoc](https://javadoc.io/badge2/dev.openfeature/sdk/javadoc.svg)](https://javadoc.io/doc/dev.openfeature/sdk)
[![Project Status: WIP – Initial development is in progress, but there has not yet been a stable, usable release suitable for the public.](https://www.repostatus.org/badges/latest/wip.svg)](https://www.repostatus.org/#wip)
[![Specification](https://img.shields.io/static/v1?label=Specification&message=v0.5.0&color=yellow)](https://github.com/open-feature/spec/tree/v0.5.0)
[![v0.5.1](https://img.shields.io/static/v1?label=Specification&message=v0.5.1&color=yellow)](https://github.com/open-feature/spec/tree/v0.5.1)
[![Known Vulnerabilities](https://snyk.io/test/github/open-feature/java-sdk/badge.svg)](https://snyk.io/test/github/open-feature/java-sdk)
[![on-merge](https://github.com/open-feature/java-sdk/actions/workflows/merge.yml/badge.svg)](https://github.com/open-feature/java-sdk/actions/workflows/merge.yml)
[![codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/open-feature/java-sdk/branch/main/graph/badge.svg?token=XMS9L7PBY1)](https://codecov.io/gh/open-feature/java-sdk)
Expand Down
24 changes: 12 additions & 12 deletions src/test/java/dev/openfeature/sdk/ProviderSpecTest.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,20 +8,20 @@
public class ProviderSpecTest {
NoOpProvider p = new NoOpProvider();

@Specification(number="2.1", text="The provider interface MUST define a metadata member or accessor, containing a name field or accessor of type string, which identifies the provider implementation.")
@Specification(number="2.1.1", text="The provider interface MUST define a metadata member or accessor, containing a name field or accessor of type string, which identifies the provider implementation.")
@Test void name_accessor() {
assertNotNull(p.getName());
}

@Specification(number="2.3.1", text="The feature provider interface MUST define methods for typed " +
@Specification(number="2.2.2.1", text="The feature provider interface MUST define methods for typed " +
"flag resolution, including boolean, numeric, string, and structure.")
@Specification(number="2.4", text="In cases of normal execution, the provider MUST populate the " +
@Specification(number="2.2.3", text="In cases of normal execution, the provider MUST populate the " +
"flag resolution structure's value field with the resolved flag value.")
@Specification(number="2.2", text="The feature provider interface MUST define methods to resolve " +
@Specification(number="2.2.1", text="The feature provider interface MUST define methods to resolve " +
"flag values, with parameters flag key (string, required), default value " +
"(boolean | number | string | structure, required) and evaluation context (optional), " +
"which returns a flag resolution structure.")
@Specification(number="2.9.1", text="The flag resolution structure SHOULD accept a generic " +
@Specification(number="2.2.8.1", text="The flag resolution structure SHOULD accept a generic " +
"argument (or use an equivalent language feature) which indicates the type of the wrapped value field.")
@Test void flag_value_set() {
ProviderEvaluation<Integer> int_result = p.getIntegerEvaluation("key", 4, new MutableContext());
Expand All @@ -41,25 +41,25 @@ public class ProviderSpecTest {

}

@Specification(number="2.6", text="The `provider` SHOULD populate the `flag resolution` structure's `reason` field with `\"DEFAULT\",` `\"TARGETING_MATCH\"`, `\"SPLIT\"`, `\"DISABLED\"`, `\"UNKNOWN\"`, `\"ERROR\"` or some other string indicating the semantic reason for the returned flag value.")
@Specification(number="2.2.5", text="The `provider` SHOULD populate the `flag resolution` structure's `reason` field with `\"DEFAULT\",` `\"TARGETING_MATCH\"`, `\"SPLIT\"`, `\"DISABLED\"`, `\"UNKNOWN\"`, `\"ERROR\"` or some other string indicating the semantic reason for the returned flag value.")
@Test void has_reason() {
ProviderEvaluation<Boolean> result = p.getBooleanEvaluation("key", false, new MutableContext());
assertEquals(Reason.DEFAULT.toString(), result.getReason());
}

@Specification(number="2.7", text="In cases of normal execution, the provider MUST NOT populate " +
@Specification(number="2.2.6", text="In cases of normal execution, the provider MUST NOT populate " +
"the flag resolution structure's error code field, or otherwise must populate it with a null or falsy value.")
@Test void no_error_code_by_default() {
ProviderEvaluation<Boolean> result = p.getBooleanEvaluation("key", false, new MutableContext());
assertNull(result.getErrorCode());
}

@Specification(number="2.8", text="In cases of abnormal execution, the `provider` **MUST** indicate an error using the idioms of the implementation language, with an associated `error code` and optional associated `error message`.")
@Specification(number="2.11", text="In cases of normal execution, the `provider` **MUST NOT** populate the `flag resolution` structure's `error message` field, or otherwise must populate it with a null or falsy value.")
@Specification(number="2.12", text="In cases of abnormal execution, the `evaluation details` structure's `error message` field **MAY** contain a string containing additional detail about the nature of the error.")
@Specification(number="2.2.7", text="In cases of abnormal execution, the `provider` **MUST** indicate an error using the idioms of the implementation language, with an associated `error code` and optional associated `error message`.")
@Specification(number="2.3.2", text="In cases of normal execution, the `provider` **MUST NOT** populate the `flag resolution` structure's `error message` field, or otherwise must populate it with a null or falsy value.")
@Specification(number="2.3.3", text="In cases of abnormal execution, the `evaluation details` structure's `error message` field **MAY** contain a string containing additional detail about the nature of the error.")
@Test void up_to_provider_implementation() {}

@Specification(number="2.5", text="In cases of normal execution, the provider SHOULD populate the " +
@Specification(number="2.2.4", text="In cases of normal execution, the provider SHOULD populate the " +
"flag resolution structure's variant field with a string identifier corresponding to the returned flag value.")
@Test void variant_set() {
ProviderEvaluation<Integer> int_result = p.getIntegerEvaluation("key", 4, new MutableContext());
Expand All @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ public class ProviderSpecTest {
assertNotNull(boolean_result.getReason());
}

@Specification(number="2.10", text="The provider interface MUST define a provider hook mechanism which can be optionally implemented in order to add hook instances to the evaluation life-cycle.")
@Specification(number="2.3.1", text="The provider interface MUST define a provider hook mechanism which can be optionally implemented in order to add hook instances to the evaluation life-cycle.")
@Specification(number="4.4.1", text="The API, Client, Provider, and invocation MUST have a method for registering hooks.")
@Test void provider_hooks() {
assertEquals(0, p.getProviderHooks().size());
Expand Down