Skip to content

Conversation

@chinmay-ts
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

…ontroliing isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled flag
@chinmay-ts chinmay-ts requested a review from a team as a code owner October 16, 2025 07:43
@mnk-blr
Copy link
Collaborator

mnk-blr commented Oct 16, 2025

Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.

Status Scanner Critical High Medium Low Total (0)
Licenses 0 0 0 0 0 issues
Open Source Security 0 0 0 0 0 issues

💻 Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse.

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link

Summary of Changes

Hello @chinmay-ts, 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 integrates a new feature flag, isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled, into the embedding SDK. This flag enables control over an 'enhanced filter interactivity' feature within embedded ThoughtSpot liveboards and applications. The changes ensure that this setting is properly passed through the SDK components and converted into a URL parameter for the embedded iframe, with corresponding tests to validate its functionality.

Highlights

  • New Feature Flag Introduction: A new configuration flag, isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled, has been introduced to control enhanced filter interactivity within embedded liveboards and applications.
  • SDK Integration and Type Definition: The new flag is now part of the LiveboardAppEmbedViewConfig interface in src/types.ts, complete with JSDoc comments detailing its purpose, supported embed types, and versioning.
  • Embed Component Support: Both AppEmbed and LiveboardEmbed classes have been updated to accept and correctly propagate the isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled flag, translating it into a isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled URL parameter for the embedded iframe.
  • Comprehensive Test Coverage: New unit tests have been added for both AppEmbed and LiveboardEmbed to ensure the correct handling and URL parameter generation for the newly introduced flag.
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.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

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

@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 introduces a new feature flag, isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled. The implementation is mostly correct, but there are a few areas for improvement. A key issue is the naming inconsistency between the SDK flag and the URL parameter, which could cause confusion. Additionally, the new tests have duplicated names and redundant code, which could be refactored into more concise, parameterized tests. Addressing these points will improve the clarity and maintainability of the code.

Comment on lines 626 to 652
test('Should add isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled flag to the iframe src', async () => {
const appEmbed = new AppEmbed(getRootEl(), {
...defaultViewConfig,
isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled: true,
} as AppViewConfig);
appEmbed.render();
await executeAfterWait(() => {
expectUrlMatchesWithParams(
getIFrameSrc(),
`http://${thoughtSpotHost}/?embedApp=true&primaryNavHidden=true&profileAndHelpInNavBarHidden=false&isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled=true${defaultParams}${defaultParamsPost}#/home`,
);
});
});

test('Should add isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled flag to the iframe src', async () => {
const appEmbed = new AppEmbed(getRootEl(), {
...defaultViewConfig,
isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled: false,
} as AppViewConfig);
appEmbed.render();
await executeAfterWait(() => {
expectUrlMatchesWithParams(
getIFrameSrc(),
`http://${thoughtSpotHost}/?embedApp=true&primaryNavHidden=true&profileAndHelpInNavBarHidden=false&isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled=false${defaultParams}${defaultParamsPost}#/home`,
);
});
});

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

There are two tests with the identical name 'Should add isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled flag to the iframe src'. This is not ideal as it can make test reports confusing. Additionally, these two tests for the true and false cases of the isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled flag can be combined into a single, parameterized test using test.each to reduce code duplication and improve readability. The test name should also reflect the name of the configuration property being tested, which is isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled.

    test.each([
        { value: true, expected: 'true' },
        { value: false, expected: 'false' },
    ])('should add isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled=$value to the iframe src', async ({ value, expected }) => {
        const appEmbed = new AppEmbed(getRootEl(), {
            ...defaultViewConfig,
            isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled: value,
        } as AppViewConfig);
        appEmbed.render();
        await executeAfterWait(() => {
            expectUrlMatchesWithParams(
                getIFrameSrc(),
                `http://${thoughtSpotHost}/?embedApp=true&primaryNavHidden=true&profileAndHelpInNavBarHidden=false&isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled=${expected}${defaultParams}${defaultParamsPost}#/home`,
            );
        });
    });

Comment on lines 186 to 214
test('should set isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled to true in url', async () => {
const liveboardEmbed = new LiveboardEmbed(getRootEl(), {
isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled: true,
...defaultViewConfig,
liveboardId,
} as LiveboardViewConfig);
liveboardEmbed.render();
await executeAfterWait(() => {
expectUrlMatchesWithParams(
getIFrameSrc(),
`http://${thoughtSpotHost}/?embedApp=true${defaultParams}&isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled=true${prefixParams}#/embed/viz/${liveboardId}`,
);
});
});

test('should set isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled to false in url', async () => {
const liveboardEmbed = new LiveboardEmbed(getRootEl(), {
isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled: false,
...defaultViewConfig,
liveboardId,
} as LiveboardViewConfig);
liveboardEmbed.render();
await executeAfterWait(() => {
expectUrlMatchesWithParams(
getIFrameSrc(),
`http://${thoughtSpotHost}/?embedApp=true${defaultParams}&isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled=false${prefixParams}#/embed/viz/${liveboardId}`,
);
});
});

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

These two tests for the true and false cases of the isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled flag are very similar and can be combined into a single, parameterized test using test.each. This will reduce code duplication and make the test suite easier to maintain. The test name should also reflect the name of the configuration property being tested, which is isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled.

    test.each([
        { value: true, expected: 'true' },
        { value: false, expected: 'false' },
    ])('should set isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled=$value in url', async ({ value, expected }) => {
        const liveboardEmbed = new LiveboardEmbed(getRootEl(), {
            isEnhancedFilterInteractivityEnabled: value,
            ...defaultViewConfig,
            liveboardId,
        } as LiveboardViewConfig);
        liveboardEmbed.render();
        await executeAfterWait(() => {
            expectUrlMatchesWithParams(
                getIFrameSrc(),
                `http://${thoughtSpotHost}/?embedApp=true${defaultParams}&isLiveboardPermissionV2Enabled=${expected}${prefixParams}#/embed/viz/${liveboardId}`,
            );
        });
    });

@pkg-pr-new
Copy link

pkg-pr-new bot commented Oct 16, 2025

Open in StackBlitz

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/thoughtspot/visual-embed-sdk/@thoughtspot/visual-embed-sdk@333

commit: 8dd5dd6

@sonar-prod-ts
Copy link

sonar-prod-ts bot commented Oct 17, 2025

SonarQube Quality Gate

Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@chinmay-ts chinmay-ts merged commit 9575d29 into main Oct 17, 2025
9 checks passed
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