-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
[FFM-1501] initial waitForInit implementation #21
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
package.json
Outdated
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
{ | |||
"name": "ff-nodejs-server-sdk", | |||
"version": "1.0.1", | |||
"version": "1.1.1", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we introduced a breaking change by completely changing the API of the SDK to be asynchronous across the board, this really aught to be at 2.0.0
by now if we're sticking to SemVer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We are not breaking anything, it is just minor feature maybe it should be 1.1.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
By changing the returns of all the variation function to be promises, everything is broken. Code written for v1.0.0
will not work with v1.1.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, this should only be v1.1.1
if it only fixes bugs in v1.1.0
, if there are any breaking changes (e.g. changes in function signatures/return types), then it should be v2.0.0
and any new features or changes that do not break the existing signature should be v1.1.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@milos85vasic-harness and I decide to remove 1.0.0 and just go with 1.0.1 :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this just a bug fix? It looks like a new feature, so at least v1.1.0
. If we have no users of this SDK breaking between v1.0.0
and v1.0.1
is fine, but if we do and they update their dependencies, the change to use promises will break their app. We need to be religious about semver to avoid the support calls.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The new thing is we introduce waitForInit so I think it is a requested feature from customer :), So that is the reason for 1.1.0 version
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some good work. Just a bit of food for thought and a question about our version numbering
4bc76c0
to
cb9a107
Compare
This PR introduce waitFor init before any usage of public methods