Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Canonical SDK feature list - #142
Conversation
…seable list of Ably SDK features.
…file. By adding the yaml extension to the prettier tool's remit I had started looping in this file, albeit not on macOS runners (explaining why it was failing in our Linux-based CI runner but not locally for me, macOS-based).
The file .markdownlint-cli2.yaml was being overlooked on macOS because of its dot prefix, despite failing our Linux-based CI.
For what it's worth, I first tried a "more clever" pattern but that caused a different failure:
ably-common % npm run lint
> ably-common@1.2.0 lint
> npm-run-all format:*:check
> ably-common@1.2.0 format:js-code:check
> eslint --max-warnings=0 .
> ably-common@1.2.0 format:data:check
> prettier --check **/{.*,*}.{json,yml,yaml}
Checking formatting...
[error] No files matching the pattern were found: "**/.*.yml".
All matched files use Prettier code style!
ERROR: "format:data:check" exited with 2.
?1Initial import to establish tooling. There is more work to do to make it fully functional and to make it look nicer.
…ature list. It's out of scope for the work of establishing canonical feature list foundations.
It's out of scope for the work of establishing canonical feature list foundations. It's also very likely that this information would live elsewhere, perhaps alongside the SDK interfaces - as annotations on the source code (TBC).
…rpose of the variants property. This was an oversight on my part while I was prototyping this. I didn't see the wood for the trees.
It's out of scope for the work of establishing canonical feature list foundations. It's also very likely that this information would live elsewhere, perhaps alongside the SDK interfaces - as annotations on the source code (TBC).
…irements stricter. Moves the null check from validateStructure function to the more narrowly scoped validateMapItems function. Adds commentary to explain why value for a key can be null in a map. Moves from tracking level to tracking parentKeys as we traverse so we can provide useful debug information when the structure is invalid.
The intention with these additional paragraphs is to provide a slightly softer pre-amble to this document, focussed more on the 'why' than the 'what'.
… scope of concern for the features specification.
…ng this repository. It was confusing and is likely implicit, especially once the features specification moves here. But, regardless, that's a decision / clarification that does not need to be made today.
… Schemas. It potentially complicates decisions around versioning.
QuintinWillison
commented
Jun 1, 2022
@lmars in respect of the conversation we had on yesterday's synchronous call, around versioning this repository, I've added 2c42292. On further reflection, I think it might help if I presented a proposal for the how we might approach this as I still think there could be benefits of 'whole repository version number', even if that could even mean a 'new home' for the schema sources. 🤔 I'll ensure to tag you on that proposal, probably as an issue on this repository, once I create it. |
QuintinWillison
commented
Jun 1, 2022
I've addressed all of the review input I've received that felt like it fell within the scope of this pull request - being the establishment of foundations that can be built on further in subsequent pull requests, either in this repository or elsewhere. While I'm unavailable for a week or so from tomorrow, @owenpearson has agreed to take on the task of seeing this pull request to the point where it can be landed. I'm going to assign it to him now and will also mark it as 'Ready for Review'. I will leave it up to Owen to re-request review from those who have already provided review input, as well as to request review from those who have not yet contributed but might wish to have the opportunity. |
QuintinWillison
commented
Jun 13, 2022
I'm back from some time off and am now going to re-assign this pull request to myself. @owenpearson and I have discussed the content and have agreed that the ephemeral notes markdown file should be removed, as it's not appropriate for addition to the Git index. If there are any parts of that file which I feel need to outlive this PR then I shall put them in a GitHub issue. |
tomkirbygreen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First pass. Will take a more architectural look once I've attended to some other stuff.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
QuintinWillison
commented
Jun 15, 2022
Thank you to everybody who has provided review input and/or approved this work. I'm going to merge it to |
lmars
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had a pending review that I forgot to submit, sorry! Only minor though...
| - uses: ably/sdk-upload-action@v1 | ||
| with: | ||
| s3AccessKeyId: ${{ secrets.SDK_S3_ACCESS_KEY_ID }} | ||
| s3AccessKey: ${{ secrets.SDK_S3_ACCESS_KEY }} |
Opus.
Early days on this pull request, which I expect to stay in a Draft state for a few days while I work on getting it ready for reviewers.In the meantime, I'm pushing the work up for visibility as I know various people are interested in how this work is evolving.I expect that I will feel this pull request is ready when the following have been completed:
features/README.mdpopulated, including descriptions of:features/ephemeral-notes.mdremovedsdk.ably.com, in order to allow us to manual inspect it