Skip to content

[AI-FSSDK] [FSSDK-12418] Remove experiment type validation from config parsing#602

Open
FarhanAnjum-opti wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
ai/farhananjum-opti/FSSDK-12418-remove-type-validation
Open

[AI-FSSDK] [FSSDK-12418] Remove experiment type validation from config parsing#602
FarhanAnjum-opti wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
ai/farhananjum-opti/FSSDK-12418-remove-type-validation

Conversation

@FarhanAnjum-opti
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@FarhanAnjum-opti FarhanAnjum-opti commented Apr 3, 2026

Summary

Removes experiment type validation from config parsing to ensure forward compatibility. Previously, all four config parsers validated the experiment "type" field against a known set of values and rejected the entire datafile if an unknown type was encountered, which would break existing SDK versions when new experiment types are added in the future.

Changes

  • Removed type validation blocks from all four config parsers (JsonConfigParser, JsonSimpleConfigParser, DatafileGsonDeserializer, DatafileJacksonDeserializer)
  • Unknown experiment types are now silently accepted and stored as-is
  • Added test verifying unknown experiment types are accepted during config parsing

Jira Ticket

FSSDK-12418

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jaeopt jaeopt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

* does NOT cause error or rejection, and config parsing succeeds.
*/
@Test
public void unknownExperimentTypeAccepted() {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@FarhanAnjum-opti this test validates datafile parsing won't fail because of invalid rule type.
Ideally, we need to validate SDK returns a "valid" decision for the rule ignoring the rule type.
Since we'll cover this full decision/event in FSC, I think we can approve this for all SDKs as is.

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