Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

[PM-22275] Remove encryption-related feature flags#6654

New issue

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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Open
eligrubb wants to merge1 commit intomain
base:main
Choose a base branch
Loading
fromkm/pm-22275

Conversation

@eligrubb
Copy link

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-22275

📔 Objective

Removes the following feature flags:

  • "PM-4154-bulk-encryption-service"
  • "use-sdk-for-decryption"
  • "pm-17987-block-type-0"

These were removed from clients in 2025.8.0 (clients#14538,clients#15153), we need to wait 3 major releases before removing feature flags from server, this is okay to go out after 2025.11.0.

⏰ Reminders before review

  • Contributor guidelines followed
  • All formatters and local linters executed and passed
  • Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
  • Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
  • Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
  • CI builds passed
  • Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
  • Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

  • 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
  • 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
  • ❓ (:question:) for questions
  • 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
  • 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
  • ❌ (:x:) or⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
  • 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
  • ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

@eligrubbeligrubb self-assigned thisNov 27, 2025
@claude
Copy link
Contributor

claudebot commentedNov 27, 2025
edited
Loading

Claude finished@eligrubb's task ——View job


Code Review Complete

Review Tasks

  • Read repository guidelines (CLAUDE.md)
  • Examine changed file (src/Core/Constants.cs)
  • Search for references to removed feature flags
  • Verify flags are no longer used
  • Review PR title and description
  • Assess security implications
  • Provide comprehensive review feedback

Summary

This PR removes three encryption-related feature flags fromsrc/Core/Constants.cs that were previously removed from clients in version 2025.8.0. The removal follows the documented policy of waiting 3 major releases before removing feature flags from the server.

Flags removed:

  • PM4154BulkEncryptionService ("PM-4154-bulk-encryption-service")
  • UserSdkForDecryption ("use-sdk-for-decryption")
  • PM17987_BlockType0 ("pm-17987-block-type-0")

Findings

Finding 1: Missing information about when the 3-major-release waiting period ends

💭 The PR states "this is okay to go out after 2025.11.0" but doesn't clearly explain the timeline calculation. For transparency and future reference, consider adding:

  • Client removal version: 2025.8.0
  • Current waiting period: 3 major releases (2025.9.0, 2025.10.0, 2025.11.0)
  • Safe to merge after: 2025.11.0 release

This helps reviewers verify the policy compliance and provides clear documentation for the timing decision.

Finding 2: Consider documenting the relationship toDisableType0Decryption

💭 The removed flagPM17987_BlockType0 appears related to the still-presentDisableType0Decryption flag (src/Core/Constants.cs:215). If these flags served different purposes or ifDisableType0Decryption is a successor that should remain, consider clarifying this relationship in the PR description to avoid confusion about why one was removed and the other wasn't.

Good Practices Observed

  • Clean removal with no orphaned references in the codebase (verified via comprehensive search)
  • Proper tracking via Jira ticket reference
  • Follows established feature flag removal policy
  • Includes links to client PRs that originally removed these flags

Security Assessment

✅ No security concerns identified. The removal of feature flag constants that are no longer referenced anywhere in the codebase poses no security risk. These flags were encryption-related, but removing unused constants after the controlled rollout period has elapsed is safe.

Action Items

None required - the PR is clean and ready for merge (after 2025.11.0 release per the stated timeline).


@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Logo
Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Detailsd4a0d42a-f379-4140-99b4-dae3c705748e

Great job! No new security vulnerabilities introduced in this pull request

@codecov
Copy link

codecovbot commentedNov 27, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 53.27%. Comparing base (d3e4ac7) to head (769c135).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@##             main    #6654   +/-   ##=======================================  Coverage   53.27%   53.27%           =======================================  Files        1906     1906             Lines       84973    84973             Branches     7639     7639           =======================================+ Hits        45268    45272    +4+ Misses      37952    37946    -6- Partials     1753     1755    +2

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report?Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copy link
Contributor

@quextenquexten left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes look good!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@quextenquextenquexten approved these changes

Assignees

@eligrubbeligrubb

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@eligrubb@quexten

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp