-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
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
Y24-220 Create v2 end point for tagsets #4732
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
Looks good!
Just the comment about adding the example requests for the Yard docs.
Whilst adding comments/ example requests for the other API v2 requests, I created a PostMan directory to persist mainly the POST requests, but also the GETs. If you would like to (or just to have a play) you can add these GET requests to the PostMan. Ref here
# | ||
# This resource represents a TagSet, which links together two related tag groups. | ||
# It includes the following attributes and relationships: | ||
# |
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.
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.
@harrietc52 , I've updated the documentation as well as the Sequencescape API v2.postman_collection.json in smb://files-smb/pipeline_solutions. Please check if it is ok.
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.
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.
Postman looks good, thank you
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.
Looks mostly good, thank you! Just a couple of questions to look at.
app/api/endpoints/tag_sets.rb
Outdated
model {} | ||
|
||
instance {} | ||
end |
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.
Was this necessary for some reason? We shouldn't be adding new V1 endpoints - Stuart's project was to replace remaining V1 use with V2 API.
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 was not sure about this and I just copied how it was for other end points. :D It sounds like it is for supporting V1. Shall I remove this?
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.
Yes pretty sure this is just for V1 so unnecessary.
|
||
def check_feature_flag | ||
render json: { error: 'TagSets API is disabled' } unless Flipper.enabled?(:y24_220_enable_tag_set_api) | ||
end |
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.
Think there should there be an addition to feature_flags.yml
in this PR?
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.
Also, if you haven't already, would you mind creating a story and a pull request to remove the feature flag, so it's easy to remove when we decide to? There's a team feature flags guidance page on Confluence in case if you haven't seen 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.
Done 👍 #4766
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.
Thank you 🙏
I think the idea was to go even further, and create the (draft) pull request ready to merge in whenever appropriate - so that removing the feature flag is really effortless (obviously extra effort for you upfront, but hopefully less overall since it's fresh in your head).
Also, thinking about when to remove the flag - on the story you've written "once the prerequisite work (Y25-185) is completed".
We can definitely switch the new feature 'on' once Y25-185 is completed, but I think we could let the flag hang around for a couple of months or so afterwards, just to ensure the page gets used and we haven't missed anything?
This was what I thought about the level of risk (copied from Slack):
I think there is a small remaining risk, as we are making the functionality on that page more constrained, in that we're not including ALL the tag groups, and we're not allowing you to select any possible combination of tag 1 and tag 2.
So feature flagging could help in that we could resolve any prod issues immediately by flipping the flag.
Since you've implemented the flag, I feel we may as well keep it around for a little while in case we get any production issues due to the above?
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.
Oh, okay. I agree, and all of your comments make complete sense. I will create a draft PR and chang the timing to remove the flag.
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.
@KatyTaylor
Following draft PRs created which enable the removal of
SS - #4770
Limber - sanger/limber#2275
Integration suite - https://gitlab.internal.sanger.ac.uk/psd/integration-suite/-/merge_requests/232
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.
Looks good, thank you, although a couple of tests are still failing
@harrietc52 @KatyTaylor I've addressed all your comments, and now all tests are passing. Please review and let me know if any further changes are needed. |
Looks great! Just the command to run to update the SS GitHub Pages for Yard documentation as mentioned above 😄 |
@harrietc52 Thanks for the review! 🙏 I ran the action 14081314706 against branch |
Oh strange! That is odd. I’ll try give it a go too |
Closes #4238
Changes proposed in this pull request
y24_220_enable_tag_set_api)
Instructions for Reviewers
[All PRs] - Confirm PR template filled
[Feature Branches] - Review code
[Production Merges to
main
]- Check story numbers included
- Check for debug code
- Check version