stocky-action-83731
11/03/2025, 3:37 PMcreamy-minister-96874
11/03/2025, 3:48 PMstrong-garage-53828
11/04/2025, 11:16 AMfierce-afternoon-26443
11/04/2025, 11:50 AMmysterious-hospital-86275
11/04/2025, 12:19 PMnarrow-night-29710
11/04/2025, 2:31 PMwitty-rocket-75751
11/05/2025, 11:06 AMrapid-salesclerk-86901
11/06/2025, 2:19 PMgreat-accountant-9560
11/06/2025, 3:28 PMon and an off property with a boolean value. What is the condition when on is returned as true?some-minister-9280
11/07/2025, 8:56 AMacceptable-king-82846
11/07/2025, 3:17 PMwooden-farmer-44624
11/07/2025, 5:41 PMFailed to parse custom headers: "Vercel" not defined in [object Object] - 1:10
When I update the headers to manually input the Token for Authorization I get:
{"error":{"code":"forbidden","message":"Not authorized","invalidToken":true}}
When I run the exact same request via Postman, I don't get an invalidToken errorjolly-spring-84802
11/10/2025, 8:16 AMgentle-oil-90501
11/10/2025, 11:19 AM/experiments endpoint request by dateUpdated
Thanks!adorable-bear-66287
11/10/2025, 1:34 PManonymous_id (device_id) from web that can map to customer_id when users log in. Our existing join table handles 1:1 ID mappings across systems perfectly (customer_id ↔ other_id_1 ↔ other_id_2).
The problem: We now need to handle m:1 relationships (multiple anonymous_id → one customer_id). I created a separate join table for anonymous_id ↔ customer_id, but metrics that depend on other IDs (e.g., customer_id ↔ other_id_1 ↔ other_id_2) don't work with this approach.
Question: Should we create one consolidated table with all ID combinations (anonymous_id ↔ customer_id ↔ other_id_1 ↔ other_id_2)? Will GrowthBook handle the necessary grouping/distincting across all these IDs correctly?dazzling-honey-61665
11/11/2025, 9:07 AMable-beach-75525
11/11/2025, 3:50 PMwide-journalist-37256
11/11/2025, 9:13 PMrapid-cat-65267
11/12/2025, 7:45 AMripe-tiger-2213
11/12/2025, 8:35 AMbrief-umbrella-80783
11/12/2025, 10:26 AMdelightful-actor-55865
11/12/2025, 10:47 PMSHOW and `USAGE`/`SELECT` permissions on the necessary Catalogs/Schemas, even if the basic connection works? Any guidance on these points would be hugely appreciated as we finalize the Databricks setup! Thanks a lot!wooden-architect-50910
11/13/2025, 3:34 AMlively-evening-1890
11/13/2025, 8:47 AMquick-apple-64181
11/13/2025, 1:14 PMmysterious-florist-78871
11/14/2025, 10:04 AMhttp://{custom_domain}:3100.
Has anyone successfully hosted the project on Azure and has some pointers? 😅
I feel like Ingress might be the culprit, not allowing me to open up more than 1 http-port. (It only supports multiple TCP ports, afaik)dry-ambulance-7044
11/14/2025, 6:27 PMable-stone-9657
11/15/2025, 4:09 AMgetProviderData() function from @flags-sdk/growthbook doesn't seem to be mapping flag options from experiment variations tied to that flag in growthbook.
There's a discrepancy between two different documentation approaches for next.js + vercel flags explorer:
1. Next.js and Vercel Feature Flags Tutorial - manual implementation of getFlagApiData() that explicitly loops through the GrowthBook payload to extract options from rules, variations, and force values. (older)
2. Next.js SDK (Vercel Flags) Documentation - Uses the built-in getProviderData() function from @flags-sdk/growthbook package, which should handle this automatically. (new)
Issue:
When using the SDK's getProviderData() function as shown in the newer docs, the flags appear in the toolbar with the default as their only option.
Question:
Is this a known limitation of getProviderData(), or did I miss something in the docs?green-church-13845
11/17/2025, 7:32 AMmysterious-florist-78871
11/17/2025, 1:17 PM