Is there a way to remove a certain value from constraint using admin api?

[Hanan-Argov]

Hi,
i'm looking for a way to remove a certain value from a constraint in a feature flag.
example:
i've got a feature flag that has the following constraint values: 100, 200, 300, 400, 500
I want to remove the value "300".
from what I understand, I need to do the following:

1. get the list of values in the constraint.
2. get the index of the value I want to remove
3. send a patch request that removes the specific index from the constraints, using this boy: [{ "op": "remove", "path": "/constraints/0/values/2" }]

is there an easier solution with just 1 call that removes the value by its actual value?

EDIT:
I'm asking this due to the chance that if i've got 2 places, that want to update the same FF, this method, and the PUT method, can cause race conditions, which can accidentally remove/add a value

[gastonfournier]

Hi @Hanan-Argov, usually you'd send a PUT with your desired state (you can check this command from the UI on the right-side panel).

curl --location --request PUT '<unleash>/api/admin/projects/api/features/<feature>/environments/development/strategies/45295735-0d97-43e2-a9fb-976ed71c9288' \
    --header 'Authorization: INSERT_API_KEY' \
    --header 'Content-Type: application/json' \
    --data-raw '{
  "name": "flexibleRollout",
  "constraints": [
    {
      "contextName": "a",
      "operator": "IN",
      "values": [
        "100", "200", "400", "500" # without 300
      ],
      "caseInsensitive": false,
      "inverted": false
    }
  ],
  "parameters": {
    "rollout": "100",
    "stickiness": "default",
    "groupId": "api-access"
  },
  "variants": [],
  "segments": [
    122
  ],
  "disabled": false
}'

If you're removing 300 just ignore the 300

[Hanan-Argov]

this still looks like a 3 step process:

1. get the list of the values
2. remove the value I want to remove
3. update the strategy with the new list of values (using PUT instead of PATCH this time)

this still doesn't help much, since it's about the same method as the one i've written.
i've also edited the OP. i've added there the reason why i'm not a fan of the 3 step solutions. it can cause a race condition between two places that want to change the same strategy

[gastonfournier]

That's a fair point. Currently, it's not possible, but I thought about a workaround (still requiring 3 steps), using the test operation (currently, you can't, but I made up this proposal: #10736). This would protect your change from concurrent modifications that could invalidate your PATCH operation. WDYT?