open-feature / open-feature/flagd
[CHORE] Remove discrepancies from existing provider implementations based on 1.0 definitions
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 997
- Forks
- 136
- Avg merge
- 4d 8h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 11
Description
Some research here is required. Examples of discrepancies included:
-
missing features (not all providers support custom connector for example)
-
audit config options
-
TLS, unix socket support,
-
startup error handling (how does the provider react to misconfiguration or inability to reach the remote or file, etc)
-
schema validation for in-process
-
RPC mode caching and cache invalidation (spec'd here)
-
Once ready, document discrepancies and file issue(s)
Relates to: https://github.com/open-feature/flagd/issues/1769
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Compare the existing provider implementations with the 1.0 definitions and the linked flagd documentation, including configuration options and RPC caching. Review the related issues #1752, #1767, and #1769 first. Done means documenting each discrepancy and filing the resulting issue(s).
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- go
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100