We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Hi there,
Love the library - one small thing I'd love to see changed is the addition of a disabled? method alongside enabled?.
disabled?
enabled?
Sometimes I have to write code like this:
unless Flipper[:feature_name].enabled?(thing) do # do something when feature is disabled end
I would much prefer to write this:
if Flipper[:feature_name].disabled?(thing) do # do something when feature is disabled end
Is this a feature you'd be willing to accept? I'm happy to make a PR if so.
Thanks :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@StoryparkNick hi! This has come up a few times before. Check out #494 (comment) first and #514 if you are still curious.
Let me know what you think about either of those.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Thanks for that context @jnunemaker, I can see why having a #disabled? method isn't as easy of a win as I thought.
#disabled?
For what it's worth, I'd chuck my hat in the ring for #not_enabled?, but I can always monkey patch my local version.
#not_enabled?
No branches or pull requests
Hi there,
Love the library - one small thing I'd love to see changed is the addition of a
disabled?
method alongsideenabled?
.Sometimes I have to write code like this:
I would much prefer to write this:
Is this a feature you'd be willing to accept? I'm happy to make a PR if so.
Thanks :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: