Conversation
…ng fields - evaluate() now uses `!== "enabled"` (fail-closed) matching evaluateAll() behavior - not_contains returns true when user field is missing/non-string (missing field doesn't contain substring) - not_in guard separated for clarity - Add tests for status consistency, missing field behavior, and segment depth protection - Rename duplicate test names in repartition.test.ts Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
mfrachet
force-pushed
the
fix/bug-scan-evaluate-consistency-and-negation-operators
branch
from
c9dd17b to
c216fa2
Compare
mfrachet
deleted the
fix/bug-scan-evaluate-consistency-and-negation-operators
branch
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
evaluate()now uses!== "enabled"instead of=== "disabled", making it fail-closed and consistent withevaluateAll(). Previously, an invalid status like"enbaled"would be treated as enabled byevaluate()but disabled byevaluateAll().not_containsnow returnstruewhen the user field is missing or non-string — a missing field does not contain the substring. Previously it incorrectly returnedfalse.not_inguard separated for clarity — invalidrule.valuereturnsfalseindependently from the membership check.Test plan
evaluate()andevaluateAll()both returnfalsefor invalid status valuesnot_containsreturnstruefor missing/non-string fieldsnot_inreturnstruefor missing fieldsfalse🤖 Generated with Claude Code