Skip to content

Conversation

@manisha1997
Copy link
Contributor

@manisha1997 manisha1997 commented Nov 14, 2023

feat!: Geolocation setter for GDPR compliance

Checklist

  • I acknowledge that all my contributions will be made under the project's license
  • I have made a material change to the repo (functionality, testing, spelling, grammar)
  • I have read the Contribution Guidelines and my PR follows them
  • I have titled the PR appropriately
  • I have updated my branch with the main branch
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added the necessary documentation about the functionality in the appropriate .md file
  • I have added inline documentation to the code I modified

If you have questions, please file a support ticket.

Copy link

@shrutiburman shrutiburman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@manisha1997
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tbischel, What will be the precedence of the host and data_residency.
In case, the user uses both set_host and set_data_residency, we are setting host based on the latest input.

def test_host_with_host_first_eu_region_second(self):
,
def test_host_with_eu_first_host_second(self):

Can you please clarify if this is correct precedence?

Copy link

@gladysmae08 gladysmae08 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

CR

@tbischel
Copy link

regarding precedence:
I think if they explicitly call the setters, it makes sense to respect the latest called. I think if they pass region and host in the constructor at the same time, we should throw an error if they conflict.

@manisha1997
Copy link
Contributor Author

Makes sense Tyler, thanks.
Will introduce the changes accordingly.

@manisha1997
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tbischel, we decided to remove region and only have a data residency setter.
We removed the set_host as we don't want to expose the function right now #1073 (comment).
Can you please review the changes

@tbischel
Copy link

minor nit with the print placement, but other than that LGTM

@tiwarishubham635 tiwarishubham635 self-requested a review November 23, 2023 09:33
@tiwarishubham635
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM!

Copy link

@tbischel tbischel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

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.

5 participants