{{ message }}
Repository navigation
fix: clarifications on event-driven-status - #408
Merged
Merged
Conversation
toddbaert
force-pushed
the
fix/provider-event-derived-state-addendum
branch
from
July 13, 2026 17:41
e91cb09 to
da6d8e7
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@specification/sections/02-providers.md`:
- Around line 343-344: Make the event-enabled versus legacy-provider conformance
boundary explicit: in specification/sections/02-providers.md lines 343-344 and
359-367, define whether lifecycle-event requirements and initialization ordering
apply to marker-enabled providers only, and state the legacy exception
consistently; mirror that compatibility scope in specification.json lines
585-592 and align the lifecycle event-support requirement in
specification/sections/05-events.md lines 38-39.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 233a723e-666f-4cf0-8ddc-00359fc7934d
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
specification.jsonspecification/appendix-e-migrations.mdspecification/sections/01-flag-evaluation.mdspecification/sections/02-providers.mdspecification/sections/05-events.md
beeme1mr
approved these changes
Jul 15, 2026
* clarify ordering of events relative to initialize * clarify spontaneous events might exist without lifecycle methods * recommend coupling lifecycle and event interfaces Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
toddbaert
force-pushed
the
fix/provider-event-derived-state-addendum
branch
from
July 15, 2026 20:13
150bfdf to
1e90cf9
Compare
This was referenced Aug 28, 2026
toddbaert
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2026
> Reopens [#431](#431), which could not be reopened after its branch moved. Same change, plus a second package. **Base of the provider-conformance stack**: [#423](#423) (assets) → [#439](#439) (Appendix F) → [#425](#425) (report schema) stack on this, but it stands on its own and can merge alone. ## What Sets up [release-please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please) to cut the specification's releases, replacing the manual tagging step. ## Why The `vX.Y.Z` tags are created by hand. That is easy to postpone — v0.9.0 went out in July and the commits since it are unreleased — and it assembles the changelog from whoever's memory is handy. release-please proposes the version and the notes as a pull request, and tags once that pull request is merged. ## What does not change | | before | after | |---|---|---| | tag | `v0.9.0` | `v0.9.1`, `v0.10.0`, … | | next version after a breaking change | minor, while < 1.0.0 | unchanged | | who decides a release goes out | a maintainer merging | a maintainer merging the release PR | `include-component-in-tag: false` keeps the bare `vX.Y.Z` shape rather than `spec/vX.Y.Z`, and `.release-please-manifest.json` starts at `0.9.0` so numbering continues rather than restarting. `release-type: simple` because the root `package.json` is `private: true` and carries no version of its own; `simple` tracks the version in `version.txt`, which is why that file is added here. ## Scope: the specification package only One package, `.`, tagged `vX.Y.Z` as it always has been. The conformance assets under `specification/assets/provider-tck` need their own tags too — a Go consumer cannot name a version without one — but that configuration belongs beside the assets, so it is added in [#423](#423) along with the files it describes. This PR stays the general setup and can merge on its own. ## What does change, and needs a decision **Release notes become generated from conventional commits.** v0.9.0's notes were written by hand, including the `⚠️ This release contains breaking changes` callout linking #280, #306 and #360. Anything beyond the commit subjects now has to be added to the release pull request before it is merged. If the TSC would rather keep the old shape, `changelog-sections` can be tuned in a follow-up — the defaults are left here so the first release is easy to eyeball. ## What to expect on merge release-please runs on push to `main` and should open a release pull request proposing **v0.9.1**; the non-chore commits since v0.9.0 are #416, #419, #429 and #408, all `fix:` or `docs:`. Nothing is tagged until that pull request is merged, so the first run is reviewable before it has any effect. The action configuration is the shape v5 actually reads: `command` and `default-branch` are not v5 inputs, `target-branch` is, and `signoff` is a configuration-file option rather than an action input — which matters because this repository enforces DCO on the bot's own commits. --------- Signed-off-by: Simon Schrottner <simon.schrottner@flagsmith.com> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com> Co-authored-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.

Just a few clarifications from #385, specifically addressing some post-merge comments from @dd-oleksii