Skip to content

Conversation

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member

Demo for issue

Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <[email protected]>
@toddbaert toddbaert requested a review from a team as a code owner December 8, 2025 21:51
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link

Summary of Changes

Hello @toddbaert, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request updates the OpenFeature SDK dependency to a fixed version 1.19.1. This change is specifically made to support a demo related to an issue, ensuring a consistent and predictable SDK environment for demonstration purposes.

Highlights

  • SDK Dependency Update: The dev.openfeature:sdk dependency has been updated from a version range [1.16.0,1.99999) to a specific version 1.19.1.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request updates the OpenFeature SDK dependency in the parent pom.xml from a version range to a fixed version (1.19.1). My review focuses on the implications of this change. While pinning a version improves build reproducibility, it reduces flexibility for consumers of the libraries in this repository. I've added a comment to discuss this trade-off and suggest either updating a related XML comment for consistency if the version pinning is intentional, or reverting to a version range to maintain compatibility flexibility.

<artifactId>sdk</artifactId>
<!-- 1.16.0 <= v < 2.0 (excluding 2.0 pre-releases)-->
<version>[1.16.0,1.99999)</version>
<version>1.19.1</version>

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

Pinning the sdk dependency to a specific version reduces flexibility for consumers. For a library ecosystem, it's generally better to use a version range to declare compatibility with a range of SDK versions that a consuming application might provide.

  • If this change is intentional and permanent, please update the comment on line 103, as it's now inconsistent with the fixed version.
  • If flexibility is desired, please consider reverting to a version range. The standard Maven range would be [1.16.0,2.0.0). The previous [1.16.0,1.99999) was likely a way to exclude pre-releases of 2.0, which is also a valid approach.

For future consideration, managing this version via a Maven property could offer a good balance of control and flexibility for child modules.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants