Skip to content

Remove redundant fga_client.close in python - #545

Draft
davidroeca wants to merge 1 commit into
openfga:mainfrom
davidroeca:python-remove-redundant-close
Draft

Remove redundant fga_client.close in python#545
davidroeca wants to merge 1 commit into
openfga:mainfrom
davidroeca:python-remove-redundant-close

Conversation

@davidroeca

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Description

fga_client.close() is handled by the context manager so it isn't needed, as discussed in openfga/python-sdk#191

References

Review Checklist

  • I have clicked on "allow edits by maintainers".
  • I have added documentation for new/changed functionality in this PR or in a PR to openfga.dev [Provide a link to any relevant PRs in the references section above]
  • The correct base branch is being used, if not main
  • I have added tests to validate that the change in functionality is working as expected

@davidroeca
davidroeca requested a review from a team as a code owner May 8, 2025 21:56
@linux-foundation-easycla

linux-foundation-easycla Bot commented May 8, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

CLA Not Signed

@davidroeca

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Please hold off on review. I'm realizing I still need to factor in changes from #116

@dyeam0

dyeam0 commented May 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Please hold off on review. I'm realizing I still need to factor in changes from #116

Hi @davidroeca. While your refactoring and this PR is on hold, can you change it to Draft PR state? That helps with our tracking and makes the status more accurate. Thanks!

fga_client.close() is handled by the context manager so it isn't needed,
as discussed in openfga/python-sdk#191
@davidroeca
davidroeca force-pushed the python-remove-redundant-close branch from f200d12 to 6826e93 Compare May 12, 2025 15:47
@davidroeca

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Hi @dyeam0 that makes sense to me, but unfortunately I don't see a way to do so

image

@rhamzeh
rhamzeh marked this pull request as draft May 12, 2025 17:28
@rhamzeh

rhamzeh commented May 12, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@davidroeca (for next time) it's from the side bar
Screenshot 2025-05-12 at 1 28 45 PM

I marked it as draft for now - let us know when you believe is ready to review.

Also please make sure to sign the Linux Foundation's CLA (#545 (comment)) when you are ready for it to be merged. It's a one time process, and without it we're restricted from merging.

@curfew-marathon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR has had no human activity for 90 days, so it has been marked lifecycle/stale.

This is automated backlog grooming, not a judgment on the work.

What happens next, unless there is activity:

  • In 30 days, it will move to lifecycle/closing-soon
  • 30 days after that, it will be closed

To keep it open, push a commit or leave a comment, and the clock will reset. For work that should not auto-close, such as an RFC or long-running experiment, ask a maintainer to add lifecycle/frozen.

@curfew-marathon curfew-marathon added the lifecycle/stale No human activity in 90 days label Jul 3, 2026
@curfew-marathon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR has had no human activity for 30 days since being marked lifecycle/stale, so it has now been marked lifecycle/closing-soon.

It will be closed in 30 days unless there is new activity.

If the work still matters, this is the moment to say so: leave a comment, push a commit, or ask a maintainer to add lifecycle/frozen if it should be kept open long-term.

If this work is no longer being pursued, no action is needed.

@curfew-marathon curfew-marathon added lifecycle/closing-soon Final warning before auto-close and removed lifecycle/stale No human activity in 90 days labels Aug 8, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

lifecycle/closing-soon Final warning before auto-close

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants