-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
feat(policy): Return definition when attr value is missing #3012
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @c-r33d, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request refines the attribute retrieval mechanism within the service layer, specifically for queries involving Fully Qualified Names (FQNs). The primary goal is to provide more granular and accurate responses when attribute values are queried. Instead of a generic 'not found' error for missing values, the system now intelligently returns the attribute definition if the value is absent but the definition is active. This change also introduces a distinct error for inactive attribute values, enhancing error handling clarity for API consumers. These improvements lead to a more predictable and user-friendly attribute management system. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. A value sought, but not yet found, Its definition, on solid ground. Inactive, yet still known, Through code, its status shown. Footnotes
|
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.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a valuable enhancement to attribute retrieval by FQN, allowing the service to return an attribute definition when a specific value is missing. It also adds a specific error for inactive attribute values, which improves clarity for clients. The implementation is logical, and the new integration tests provide good coverage for the new functionality and edge cases. I have one suggestion to refactor a loop to avoid modifying an input slice, which is a good practice for preventing unexpected side effects.
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
|
/gemini review |
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.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a significant change in how attribute values are retrieved by FQN. The new logic correctly handles cases where attribute values are missing or inactive, returning attribute definitions for missing values and a specific error for inactive ones. The changes are well-supported by new integration tests that cover various scenarios. The database queries have been updated to allow for fetching inactive values when necessary, which is a good addition. I have one suggestion to improve the code by avoiding modification of input parameters, which is a good practice for preventing unexpected side effects.
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
/gemini ask what is the suggestion? |
|
My apologies for the confusion in my initial summary! Upon closer review of the Therefore, the code already adheres to the good practice of avoiding modification of input parameters, and no specific suggestion is needed for that point. Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in my previous comment! |
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
|
X-Test Failure Report |
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
|
Proposed Changes
Feature goal:
allow_traversalthat we fail if the value is not returned, bc direct entitlements is not used here.
1.) Return attribute definition when attribute value is missing and not-inactive.
2.) Populate attribute value inactive error.
Checklist
Testing Instructions