Skip to content
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

Breaking changes to Typescript typings in dot release #145

Closed
ellbee opened this issue Jul 4, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

Breaking changes to Typescript typings in dot release #145

ellbee opened this issue Jul 4, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@ellbee
Copy link
Collaborator

ellbee commented Jul 4, 2016

Reported by b-smets:

Not sure who is really to blame for this but please don't put breaking TS changes in dot releases.
87df18a added a mandatory TProps generic parameter between 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 which causes TS to fail to compile when using the old version. Not good at all!

@ellbee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ellbee commented Jul 4, 2016

@b-smets I have reverted the offending commit, and published v2.5.3. on NPM. I don't use Typescript, so could you check that it solves the problem?

@b-smets
Copy link

b-smets commented Jul 4, 2016

Thanks for the quick intervention. v2.5.3 seems to fix this and everything is building fine again.

Is there a roadmap for which version will contain the extra type parameter? I would like to document this for when we upgrade to the next bigger version. ( API changes are obviously fine if they happen in major or even minor versions but doing them in the patch version is a bit scary ;-) )

@ellbee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ellbee commented Jul 4, 2016

Yes, it wasn't intentional. There are a couple of other Typescript things outstanding, so I think we'll get them sorted out in a branch and then release them all together as version 3. I don't see the Reselect API changing very much (if at all) at this point so the type definitions should become very stable too. What do you think? cc @threehams?

@ellbee ellbee closed this as completed Jul 4, 2016
@threehams
Copy link
Collaborator

Ouch, sorry, thanks for the quick revert. I hadn't thought of a change in the generic as a breaking change, but that could definitely cause chaos.

Should I create issues for any outstanding work which isn't covered by pull requests? This would include being very explicit about what's being exported from the module.

@ellbee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ellbee commented Jul 5, 2016

Hey, no worries, I should have thought about it when I made the release but mistakes happen.

Creating issues for the other outstanding work sounds good.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants