Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Release/1.2 - #843
Conversation
b12a56e to
03b6c0aCompare…-Version for REST (RSC7a).
Command used, from content/client-lib-development-guide: git diff v1.1-as-amended:./features.textile ./features.textile > ./versions/features-1-1__1-2.diff
…lative to root. I had accidentally asked nanoc to compile the site from a sub-folder but it took me a while to work out that this had created a transitory crash.log file for me in that folder. It's easier for developers to spot this kind of mistake if they'll see a new file pop up in that scenario.
…s in an old version snapshot file.
bd6f857 to
5acd479Compare
SimonWoolf
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note that the v=1.2 with sse examples won't work until we make that change in realtime to make them work. And also reactor events currently default to v=1.0, not 1.2.
QuintinWillison
commented
Mar 31, 2020
Thanks @SimonWoolf - I guess this ties in with #845 which I think I'll get merged first anyway, given it amends docs repository state for 1.1. What goes first at this stage in terms of getting those realtime changes made, if in light of @mattheworiordan's #845 PR they still need to be made? Can we get this release merged to bleeding edge docs via |
tcard
commented
Apr 1, 2020
@QuintinWillison Shouldn't this be deployed to docs.ably.io? |
QuintinWillison
commented
Apr 1, 2020
Hi @tcard. Yes, it's live. Happens automatically once it lands on |
tcard
commented
Apr 1, 2020
I commented because I was seeing 1.1 on docs.ably.io, but refreshing fixed that, so I guess it was cached or something. Sorry for the noise. |
SimonWoolf
commented
Apr 1, 2020
As discussed on slack the diff is wrong, looks like it's from Apologies for not picking up on this during my PR review on monday |
| x-ably-message-id: {UNIQUE_ABLY_MESSAGE_ID} | ||
| x-ably-message-timestamp: {TIMESTAMP_ORIGINAL_MESSAGE_WAS_SENT} | ||
| x-ably-version: 1.0 | ||
| x-ably-version: 1.2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SimonWoolf is this correct? Will the Reactor rules use a 1.2 now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not yet, as I mentioned in my review of this pr. I'm planning to change the default for new rules, per the new versioning policy. (TBH I still think this change is unnecessary and that changing the version without there being any actual difference is confusing to customers, but I've already lost that argument 🙂)
| - x-ably-envelope-appid := the "app ID":https://support.ably.io/support/solutions/articles/3000063083 which the message came from | ||
| - content-type := the type of the payload. This will be @application/json@ or @application/x-msgpack@ | ||
| - x-ably-version := the version of Reactor Event. At present this should be @1.0@, though older Events will be @0.8@ | ||
| - x-ably-version := the version of Reactor Event. At present this should be @1.2@ |
| ```[javascript] | ||
| var querystring = 'v=1.1&channels={{RANDOM_CHANNEL_NAME}}&rewind=1&key={{API_KEY}}'; | ||
| var querystring = 'v=1.2&channels={{RANDOM_CHANNEL_NAME}}&rewind=1&key={{API_KEY}}'; |
mattheworiordan
commented
Apr 1, 2020
I am afraid we have an issue here with this PR in that we've effectively skipped a version now in the docs: This is important because if someone is now using 1.1, what docs do they refer to? The process we followed before was to simply copy the files into a 1.1 versions folder, and voila, you magically have 1.1. We need to do this I am afraid. Also, this has been merged in What's the plan for release of all 1.2 libraries too i.e. we should bump all libraries I assume to 1.2 even if they don't necessarily change so that we have a set of 1.2 libraries, and the features doc is updated to confirm what features are missing from which libs for 1.2 specific things. |
@mattheworiordan can you please be specific regarding your statement "we've effectively skipped a version now in the docs". For what I was able to work out from inspecting the existing repository, the commits going towards the previous 1.1 release by @tomczoink, the Ruby 'versions helper' code in this repository and from adhoc input I've had from @SimonWoolf my work to get us to a state of having docs ready for 1.2 was complete. So what did I miss? Your example screenshot above is from a page that did not need to change between 1.0 and 1.2 docs - so why do you assert it needs an entry in the drop down for 1.1? The only two pages that have changed are channel params: and the features spec: I don't know what more work needs doing on this repository so can you either be more specific about what work still remains or perhaps push some commits yourself, please? FYI, @paddybyers |
mattheworiordan
commented
Apr 6, 2020
Moving this conversation out of here as there is an open issue #854 |




Make 1.2 the current version, ensuring that 1.1 versions are accessible (where applicable).