6 ms·
i could see it getting complex with a lot of flags, inevitable you'll run into a situation where more than one flag is combined. something like enabledFeature
by chasd00 14d ago
i could see it getting complex with a lot of flags, inevitable you'll run into a situation where more than one flag is combined.
something like enabledFeature = (flag1 || flag2 || flag3) && flag4
then, down the road, you remove flag4. Hopefully the above would result in a compile error but you may be in a language or situation where a missing flag4 is interpreted as boolean false. That could cause all kinds of havoc in logical combinations like that are scattered all over the codebase. Even worse would be REST APIs retrieving flag values because who knows what's happening in that service code? Plus, you'd never know there was an issue until users start reporting missing or extra features showing up unless you have e2e tests for every possible combination of feature flags...
- lpribis 14d agoSurely the commenter means deleting them in the code, not just the management software. Otherwise, what's the point? You need to find every occurrence of flag4 and remove references to it. So that boolean expression would need to have `&& flag4` removed.
- chasd00 14d agoWhat I’m saying is there may be references you don’t have access to.