21 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
21 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
# 2026-04-15
|
|
|
|
## Toggle Name Follow-up
|
|
|
|
- Additional historical context from Teams suggests the existing LaunchDarkly flag name `xflow-master-swiftui-enabled` was already shared in the Fid4 LaunchDarkly project as the SwiftUI toggle.
|
|
- User-provided historical references: Neetu Gupta asked for the SwiftUI toggle name and Jason Mandozzi replied with `xflow-master-swiftui-enabled` plus the LaunchDarkly link; in January 2025, Thomas Payne also asked whether the team was ready to activate that same toggle.
|
|
- Current interpretation: the team may be able to keep using the same flag name even though the rollout intent is now narrower. In the current rollout, toggling would switch only the final `UIHostingController` wrapping on or off, while SwiftUI remains in use either way.
|
|
- This historical evidence supports keeping the existing flag name if renaming would add friction, but the semantic mismatch should still be acknowledged when describing the rollout.
|
|
- Fresh clarification from Jeff on April 15: do not reuse the old SwiftUI LaunchDarkly flag for this rollout.
|
|
- New required flag name for the rollout document: `xflow-swiftui-container-enabled`.
|
|
- The rollout document should explicitly note that this new flag is `to be added in the future as part of implementation`.
|
|
- Jeff plans to ask later how to get the new flag added when implementation time comes.
|
|
|
|
## PDIAP-15765 Follow-up Drafting Context
|
|
|
|
- David plans to confirm that `PDIAP-15765` was moved from investigation back to In Progress.
|
|
- Current working interpretation: the `HybridBrokerageAccountOpening` / `JointIdentityCheck` behavior appears to be a different issue from the iOS-only Youth `TeenIdentityCheck` gap.
|
|
- This separate `HybridBrokerage` path currently appears consistent across iOS and Android, so it may be expected flow/service behavior rather than the same client-side defect.
|
|
- Confidence is still limited: David wants to re-check whether anything changed in that path before stating that conclusion too strongly.
|
|
- One reason for suspicion is that the validation appears to use `min: 10` and `max: 10`, which may indicate questionable or non-meaningful validation setup rather than the same decoding problem tracked in the iOS story.
|