Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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: Create flagsmith on flagsmith feature export task #3149
feat: Create flagsmith on flagsmith feature export task #3149
Changes from 12 commits
be1519c
a5cc2d1
c8b762e
a5eaa0b
022d503
be3f5f0
301a45d
272e1f8
7332a4e
7ddc9cf
cc56b55
5df63ec
6709b33
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Interesting. I can certainly see why you went with this approach but I think I'd prefer to just have an attribute on the FeatureExport class. Just thinking it's slightly better aesthetics for the self hosted community where this functionality will be totally redundant. It'll be a redundant column vs a redundant table.
That being said, I don't have a massive preference here so if you think this is the cleanest approach, I'll take your word for it.
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.
I think it's better to keep the whole functionality limited to it's own class. I can see
FeatureExport
getting expanded and used more and more as the functionality evolves and every dev investigating it will see a field that is used almost none of the time and it will clutter up the definition of theFeatureExport
class. I think it's better to just have a single class here which self-describes itself. Plus, if there are any other features we decide to implement in the future, like say hold onto different versions of flagsmith for download, we can add it to theFlagsmithOnFlagsmithFeatureExport
class.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.
Yep, fair enough. Happy with this approach in that case. Maybe we should add a docstring to the model however, to help explain it's purpose.
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.
Good idea I'll add it before merging the PR.