-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
feat!: Use new EvaluationResult, updated test data
#261
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
Conversation
EvaluationContext/EvaluationResult test dataEvaluationContext/EvaluationResult test data
|
Minimum allowed coverage is Generated by 🐒 cobertura-action against 1c85d1b |
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #261 will improve performances by ×20Comparing Summary
Benchmarks breakdown
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
✂️
This is unexpected. Perhaps caused by JSON parsing time? |
EvaluationContext/EvaluationResult test dataEvaluationResult, update test data
EvaluationResult, update test dataEvaluationResult, updated test data
|
The base benchmark does not contain JSONPath calls — I've acknowledging the regression. |
FTR, I was actually pointing at the bigger size of the test data JSON file. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💅
Comment addressed, reviewer outside working hours
Closes #262.
Contributes to Flagsmith/flagsmith#6120, Flagsmith/flagsmith#6121.
In this PR, we:
EvaluationResultschema, omitting thecontextkey, and using a map forflags.