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

chore: remove released feature flag for extensions/ future state #5926

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Dec 10, 2024

Conversation

sarahetter
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 Thanks for submitting a pull request! 🎉

Summary

Cleaning up feature flag now that it's been turned on for months now :)


For us to review and ship your PR efficiently, please perform the following steps:

  • Open a bug/issue before writing your code 🧑‍💻. This ensures
    we can discuss the changes and get feedback from everyone that should be involved. If you`re fixing a typo or
    something that`s on fire 🔥 (e.g. incident related), you can skip this step.
  • Read the contribution guidelines 📖. This ensures
    your code follows our style guide and passes our tests.
  • Update or add tests (if any source code was changed or added) 🧪
  • Update or add documentation (if features were changed or added) 📝
  • Make sure the status checks below are successful ✅

A picture of a cute animal (not mandatory, but encouraged)

@sarahetter sarahetter requested a review from a team as a code owner December 5, 2024 22:03
@sarahetter sarahetter force-pushed the sarahetter/remove-future-state-flag branch from 91d9c7c to 60c4cc8 Compare December 5, 2024 22:08
@sarahetter sarahetter changed the title chore: remove released feature flag for future state v2 chore: remove released feature flag for future state Dec 5, 2024
@sarahetter sarahetter changed the title chore: remove released feature flag for future state chore: remove released feature flag for extensions/ future state Dec 5, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

This pull request adds or modifies JavaScript (.js, .cjs, .mjs) files.
Consider converting them to TypeScript.

@@ -162,8 +125,8 @@ const getIntegrations = async function ({

const baseUrl = new URL(host ? `http://${host}` : `https://api.netlifysdk.com`)

// use future state feature flag
const url = useV2Endpoint
// if accountId isn't present, use safe v1 endpoint
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this for backwards compatibility? I was expecting us to fully switch over to the new endpoint without the feature flag, but is it the case that there might still something still calling this code without an account id once this code goes out?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Honestly this is just because I don't know if there would ever be a case where accountId isn't present. 😎 The config package has a few mysterious optional types on things like accountId where I'd anticipate them to always be present, but there's no comments around why they were marked as optional.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's fair enough. I was maybe being a little greedy thinking that we might even be able to get rid of the whole api endpoint for ${baseUrl}site/${siteId}/integrations/safe in the other system. No change needed here, I was just learning.

@lemusthelroy
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good to me from the context I remember from when this logic was added previously.

@sarahetter sarahetter enabled auto-merge (squash) December 10, 2024 18:37
@sarahetter sarahetter merged commit 7366761 into main Dec 10, 2024
37 of 38 checks passed
@sarahetter sarahetter deleted the sarahetter/remove-future-state-flag branch December 10, 2024 19:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants