Changed SDK's structure to align with other C++ projects.

[NeaguGeorgiana23]

This PR

• Reorganizes the structure of the project and creates more granular rules for BUILD files.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @NeaguGeorgiana23, 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 refactors the C++ SDK's project layout and build system. The primary goal is to improve the organization and maintainability of the codebase by consolidating files into a more logical directory structure and introducing fine-grained Bazel build rules. This change simplifies dependency management and makes it easier to build and test specific components of the SDK, ultimately enhancing the project's overall development experience.

Highlights

• Project Structure Reorganization: The SDK's file structure has been reorganized, moving header files from include/openfeature/ and source files from src/ into a consolidated openfeature/ directory. This aligns the project with common C++ conventions.
• Granular Bazel BUILD Rules: The previous monolithic include/BUILD and src/BUILD files have been replaced by a single, highly granular openfeature/BUILD file. This new file defines individual cc_library targets for each major component of the SDK (e.g., client, provider, evaluation context), enhancing modularity and build efficiency.
• Updated Internal References: All internal include paths within source files and dependencies specified in test/BUILD have been updated to reflect the new file locations and the granular Bazel targets defined in the openfeature/BUILD file.

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. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request effectively reorganizes the SDK's project structure, introducing more granular Bazel build rules that align with common C++ project practices. This is a significant improvement for maintainability and build efficiency. The file relocations and corresponding updates to include paths and build dependencies are correct. I have one suggestion for the new openfeature/BUILD file to further enhance its readability and maintainability by reducing boilerplate code.

[gemini-code-assist]

To improve maintainability and reduce boilerplate, you can define the simple header-only libraries using a loop. This makes the BUILD file more concise and easier to manage as you add more header-only components.

For example, you could group error_code, evaluation_context, flag_metadata, metadata, provider_status, and reason like this, replacing their individual cc_library definitions:

[cc_library(
    name = lib,
    hdrs = [lib + ".h"],
) for lib in [
    "error_code",
    "evaluation_context",
    "flag_metadata",
    "metadata",
    "provider_status",
    "reason",
]]

[m-olko]

Following on that, I don't think loop is a good option, but I would consider grouping them more together.
Maybe we could add F.e.
error_code as part of resolution details library
metadata as part of provider

I'm not sure if that's best practice but wanted to consider that. @oxddr what do you think?

[oxddr]

Yes, definitely don't follow this advice - it's wrong.