feat(evaluation-context): Add ApplicationEvaluationContext, document schema fields

[khvn26]

Thanks for submitting a PR! Please check the boxes below:

• I have added information to docs/ if required so people know about the feature!
• I have filled in the "Changes" section below?
• I have filled in the "How did you test this code" section below?
• I have used a Conventional Commit title for this Pull Request

Changes

This adds ApplicationEvaluationContext to the shared SDK evaluation context schema used by Golang and JS SDKs.

I also added descriptions to the new and current fields.

How did you test this code?

N/A

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

3 Skipped Deployments

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
docs	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Mar 11, 2025 9:55am
flagsmith-frontend-preview	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Mar 11, 2025 9:55am
flagsmith-frontend-staging	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Mar 11, 2025 9:55am

[github-actions]

Docker builds report

Image	Build Status	Security report
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-e2e:pr-5203	Finished ✅	Skipped
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-api-test:pr-5203	Finished ✅	Skipped
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-api:pr-5203	Finished ✅	Results ✅
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith:pr-5203	Finished ✅	Results ✅
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-private-cloud:pr-5203	Finished ✅	Results ✅
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-frontend:pr-5203	Finished ✅	Results ✅

[github-actions]

Uffizzi Preview deployment-61730 was deleted.

[matthewelwell]

@khvn26 I'd love to see more description in this PR for future reference if needed. Since I'm not fully aligned on the evaluation context functionality in general, I'm a little unsure on the addition of the Application context here.

For example, let's link it to Tiago's PR in the js client repository and explain whether it complements or supersedes that PR.

Also, can you add an example usage or the plans for how it should be used. By adding it to the evaluation context, it seems like we're suggesting that it should / could be used for evaluation purposes but as I've mentioned before, my understanding was that this data was (primarily at least) for the purpose of having visibility on where API traffic was originating from.

[kyle-ssg]

Im going to approve this as it looks like there'd be no breaking changes to SDKs, I agree with Matt's comments however - I don't fully understand what this means for the SDKs and if any further work is required to support this. Does the JS SDK need to just do a new build to pull in the updated types?

[khvn26]

I'm going to close this for now as we're not going to support evaluation for these fields for a while and there's no alignment yet in the team about it.

I will, however, open a separate PR adding field descriptions to existing schema.