feat: posthog feature flag #1955
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in this pull request enhance the Posthog integration by introducing a new configuration object for initializing feature flags, modifying the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/utils.js (3)
52-56: Documentation needs parameter type specificationThe JSDoc comment should specify the expected type of the
configparameter and return value for better type safety./** * Returns bootstrap flags object - * @param {*} config + * @param {Object} config - Configuration object containing flags array + * @param {Array<{flag: string, value: string}>} config.flags - Array of flag configurations * @returns {Object.<string, boolean|string>} - Object containing flag key-value pairs */
57-79: Consider improving type safety and code structureThe function could benefit from stronger type checking and a more maintainable boolean parsing approach.
Consider these improvements:
const getFlags = config => { const flags = {}; - if (config.flags && config.flags.length > 0) { + if (Array.isArray(config?.flags) && config.flags.length > 0) { config.flags.forEach(bootstrapFlag => { + const { flag, value } = bootstrapFlag || {}; + const trimmedFlag = String(flag || '').trim(); + const trimmedValue = String(value || '').trim(); + if ( - bootstrapFlag?.flag?.trim() && - bootstrapFlag?.value?.trim() + trimmedFlag && + trimmedValue ) { - // parsing value to boolean if it's "true" or "false", otherwise keep as is - let parsedValue = - bootstrapFlag.value.toLowerCase() === "true" - ? true - : bootstrapFlag.value.toLowerCase() === "false" - ? false - : bootstrapFlag.value; + const lowerValue = trimmedValue.toLowerCase(); + const parsedValue = + lowerValue === 'true' ? true : + lowerValue === 'false' ? false : + trimmedValue; - flags[bootstrapFlag.flag] = parsedValue; + flags[trimmedFlag] = parsedValue; } }); } return flags; };Changes:
- Added proper null checking with optional chaining
- Added explicit type conversion using
String()- Improved variable naming and structure
- Simplified boolean parsing logic
57-79: Consider architectural improvements for feature flag handlingA few suggestions to enhance the feature flag implementation:
- Consider implementing a validation mechanism against allowed flag names to prevent misconfigurations
- The current implementation processes flags on every call. For better performance, consider caching the processed flags if the configuration is static
- Consider supporting more complex flag values (objects, arrays) for future extensibility
Would you like me to propose a more detailed implementation addressing these points?
packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/browser.js (2)
73-76: Consider adding validation and documentation for feature flagsWhile the implementation is functionally correct, consider these improvements for better robustness:
- Add JSDoc comments documenting the expected structure of feature flags
- Add validation for flag values
- Consider adding error handling for invalid flag configurations
Example documentation:
/** * @typedef {Object.<string, boolean|string|number>} FeatureFlags * * Bootstrap configuration with feature flags * @example * { * bootstrap: { * featureFlags: { * 'feature-a': true, * 'feature-b': 'variant-1' * } * } * } */
Line range hint
1-150: Consider documentation and testing strategy for feature flagsThe feature flags implementation looks solid, but consider these architectural aspects:
- Add integration tests covering various feature flag scenarios
- Document the feature flags capability in the SDK's main documentation
- Consider adding a migration guide for users wanting to adopt feature flags
- Add examples of common feature flag use cases
Would you like assistance in creating:
- Integration test examples?
- Documentation updates?
- Migration guide?
packages/analytics-js-integrations/__tests__/integrations/Posthog/browser.test.js (1)
99-158: LGTM: Feature flag test cases are comprehensiveThe test cases effectively cover the main scenarios for feature flag initialization. They verify:
- Proper inclusion of valid feature flags in bootstrap
- Handling of empty feature flags
- Filtering of invalid feature flags
Consider adding these test cases for more comprehensive coverage:
- Test with null/undefined flags configuration
- Test with non-array flags configuration
- Test with duplicate flag names
- Test with special characters in flag names
Example test case:
it('should handle null/undefined flags configuration', () => { const testConfigs = [ { ...config, flags: null }, { ...config, flags: undefined } ]; testConfigs.forEach(testConfig => { posthogInstance = new Posthog(testConfig, analytics, destinationInfo); posthogInstance.init(); expect(window.posthog._i[0][1].bootstrap).toStrictEqual(undefined); }); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
packages/analytics-js-integrations/__tests__/integrations/Posthog/browser.test.js(2 hunks)packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/browser.js(4 hunks)packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/utils.js(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/utils.js (1)
81-81: LGTM!
The export statement correctly includes the new function while maintaining the existing structure.
packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/browser.js (2)
25-25: LGTM! Constructor changes are well-structured
The initialization of feature flags is placed appropriately with other configuration properties, and the formatting improvements enhance readability.
Also applies to: 33-33
11-11: Verify the getFlags utility function implementation
The import statement is syntactically correct. Let's verify the implementation of the getFlags utility function.
✅ Verification successful
Import of getFlags utility function is correctly implemented
The getFlags utility function is properly implemented in utils.js and correctly exported. The function processes feature flag configuration from the provided config object, handling an array of flags with proper null checks and trimming. The import statement in browser.js correctly references this implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the getFlags utility function implementation
# Expected: Function should exist in utils.js and handle feature flag configuration
# Search for getFlags function definition
ast-grep --pattern 'export function getFlags($_) {
$$$
}'
# Search for getFlags function tests
rg -l "getFlags.*test" --type js
Length of output: 96
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to locate the getFlags implementation
# First, let's find the utils file in the Posthog integration directory
fd "utils.js" packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/
# Then let's look at its content to verify the function existence
rg "getFlags" packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/ -A 5
# Also search for any exports of getFlags
rg "export.*getFlags" packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/
Length of output: 2689
packages/analytics-js-integrations/__tests__/integrations/Posthog/browser.test.js (2)
22-31: LGTM: Configuration object is well-structured
The configuration object includes all necessary PostHog initialization parameters and follows best practices.
99-158: Verify test coverage for feature flag implementation
Let's ensure all feature flag functionality is adequately tested.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the feature flag implementation to ensure comprehensive test coverage.
Based on the implementation details revealed, I can now provide the final response:
Test coverage for feature flag implementation is comprehensive
The test cases adequately cover all aspects of the feature flag implementation:
- Tests verify the
getFlagsutility function's behavior for:- Valid flag values with boolean conversion ("true"/"false")
- Custom string values (e.g., "control")
- Empty flags array
- Invalid flag entries (undefined, missing properties)
- Tests confirm proper bootstrap object initialization with feature flags
- Implementation in
browser.jsandutils.jsis fully covered by the test scenarios
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check test coverage and related implementations
# Find feature flag related code in source files
echo "Searching for feature flag related code..."
rg -l "featureFlags|flags" packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/
# Check for any untested methods
echo "Checking for potentially untested methods..."
ast-grep --pattern 'class Posthog {
$$$
$method($_) {
$$$
featureFlags
$$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 612
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the actual implementation in browser.js
echo "Feature flag implementation in browser.js:"
rg -A 10 "flags.*=" packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/browser.js
# Check initialization and bootstrap related code
echo "\nFeature flag initialization code:"
rg -A 5 "bootstrap.*=" packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/browser.js
# Check utils.js for any feature flag related functions
echo "\nFeature flag related utilities:"
cat packages/analytics-js-integrations/src/integrations/Posthog/utils.js
Length of output: 3507
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1955 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 58.29% 58.32% +0.02%
===========================================
Files 485 485
Lines 16615 16626 +11
Branches 3333 3349 +16
===========================================
+ Hits 9686 9697 +11
+ Misses 5732 5686 -46
- Partials 1197 1243 +46 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
size-limit report 📦
|
| const getFlags = config => { | ||
| const flags = {}; | ||
| if (config.flags && config.flags.length > 0) { | ||
| config.flags.forEach(bootstrapFlag => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| config.flags.forEach(bootstrapFlag => { | |
| config.flags.forEach({flag, value} => { |
PR Description
Please include a summary of the change along with the relevant motivation and context.
Linear task (optional)
INT-2935
Cross Browser Tests
Please confirm you have tested for the following browsers:
Sanity Suite
Security
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
getFlagsfunction for better integration management.