Skip to content

feat(remote-config): add optional exposurePercent field to ExperimentValue#3096

Draft
tusharkhandelwal8 wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
exposure
Draft

feat(remote-config): add optional exposurePercent field to ExperimentValue#3096
tusharkhandelwal8 wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
exposure

Conversation

@tusharkhandelwal8
Copy link

feat(remote-config): add exposurePercent to ExperimentValue interface

Add optional exposurePercent field to ExperimentValue to expose the
percentage of users included in an experiment. This follows up on #3046
which introduced the ExperimentValue type.

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Contributor

Summary of Changes

Hello, 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 introduces a new optional field, exposurePercent, to the ExperimentValue interface within the Remote Config module. This enhancement provides the capability to define and track the percentage of users targeted by an experiment, improving the expressiveness and utility of experiment configurations. The change is fully documented and supported by updated unit tests.

Highlights

  • New Field Added: An optional exposurePercent field has been added to the ExperimentValue interface, allowing the specification of the percentage of users included in an experiment.
  • API Documentation Updated: The API documentation for ExperimentValue has been updated to reflect the inclusion of the new exposurePercent field.
  • Unit Tests Enhanced: Unit tests for Remote Config have been updated to include and assert the exposurePercent field in ExperimentValue objects, ensuring proper functionality.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

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.

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
Contributor

@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 adds an optional exposurePercent field to the ExperimentValue interface, allowing the SDK to expose the percentage of users included in an experiment. The changes include updating the interface definition and its corresponding API documentation, as well as updating unit tests to cover the new field. The implementation is straightforward and correct. I have one suggestion to improve the documentation for the new field to ensure its correct usage.

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.

1 participant