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: Allow features to enable builtin statements #4773

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 23, 2022
Merged

feat: Allow features to enable builtin statements #4773

merged 3 commits into from
Jun 23, 2022

Conversation

Marwes
Copy link
Contributor

@Marwes Marwes commented May 19, 2022

This lets one write @feature featurename in a comment on a builtin statement to optionally include that statement in the resuling semantic graph. Since the standard library is compiled ahead of time this doesn't work to add feature flagged builtins for the go API (and therefore not for anything deployed to prod), it is enough to test two different versions of the standard library in the query log analyzer from #4776

Marwes pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2022
The documentation implies that these fields are mandatory to call this function and looking at the implementation it will indeed error if they are missing. Changing this is still technically a breaking change so maybe we want some caution before merging this? (#4773 could perhaps be used to allow an incremental rollout, or I could run this through the query log analyzer I made for #4776)
Marwes pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2022
The documentation implies that these fields are mandatory to call this function and looking at the implementation it will indeed error if they are missing. Changing this is still technically a breaking change so maybe we want some caution before merging this? (#4773 could perhaps be used to allow an incremental rollout, or I could run this through the query log analyzer I made for #4776)
Marwes pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 21, 2022
The documentation implies that these fields are mandatory to call this function and looking at the implementation it will indeed error if they are missing. Changing this is still technically a breaking change so maybe we want some caution before merging this? (#4773 could perhaps be used to allow an incremental rollout, or I could run this through the query log analyzer I made for #4776)
@Marwes Marwes marked this pull request as ready for review June 22, 2022 12:16
@Marwes Marwes requested a review from a team as a code owner June 22, 2022 12:17
@Marwes Marwes requested review from skartikey and removed request for a team June 22, 2022 12:17
@skartikey
Copy link
Contributor

@Marwes linter is throwing some error in CI, pls take a look.

@Marwes Marwes merged commit 2314ab7 into master Jun 23, 2022
@Marwes Marwes deleted the attributes branch June 23, 2022 09:16
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.

2 participants