cognitedata
feat(files): move multipart functionality to stable [BND3D-4545]
We are promoting multi-part upload functionality to stable after using it for months in 3d-management. This will allow other consumers to use it without adding beta-sdk dependency in their apps.
Shouldn't the feature be present in stable and beta ?
ideally yes. i have struggled to make it so. like Beta extends Stable
I get type conflicts when i make it that way in this current structure. is there a PR that i can follow as a guide? i know it is a breaking change for beta but we are the only consumers of it . Not sure what is the guideline how we retire beta functionality when we promote it to stable . i can have a quick chat if you have time on this
Shouldn't the feature be present in stable and beta ?
ideally yes. i have struggled to make it so. like Beta extends Stable
I get type conflicts when i make it that way in this current structure. is there a PR that i can follow as a guide? i know it is a breaking change for beta but we are the only consumers of it . Not sure what is the guideline how we retire beta functionality when we promote it to stable . i can have a quick chat if you have time on this
@G0nza1es I'm not very familiar with this repo, haven't contributed here much, sorry :/ maybe @polomani or @BugGambit can help....
Shouldn't the feature be present in stable and beta ?
ideally yes. i have struggled to make it so. like Beta extends Stable I get type conflicts when i make it that way in this current structure. is there a PR that i can follow as a guide? i know it is a breaking change for beta but we are the only consumers of it . Not sure what is the guideline how we retire beta functionality when we promote it to stable . i can have a quick chat if you have time on this
@G0nza1es I'm not very familiar with this repo, haven't contributed here much, sorry :/ maybe @polomani or @BugGambit can help....
@G0nza1es the beta SDK extends the stable SDK. So as long as you don't break the implementation but just copy the API methods from beta to stable, then the beta SDK shouldn't break.
Shouldn't the feature be present in stable and beta ?
ideally yes. i have struggled to make it so. like Beta extends Stable I get type conflicts when i make it that way in this current structure. is there a PR that i can follow as a guide? i know it is a breaking change for beta but we are the only consumers of it . Not sure what is the guideline how we retire beta functionality when we promote it to stable . i can have a quick chat if you have time on this
@G0nza1es I'm not very familiar with this repo, haven't contributed here much, sorry :/ maybe @polomani or @BugGambit can help....
@G0nza1es the beta SDK extends the stable SDK. So as long as you don't break the implementation but just copy the API methods from beta to stable, then the beta SDK shouldn't break.
ok. initially i tried that but when i have the same types , i was having conflicting types. but will try one more time . maybe i was doing something wrong.
Shouldn't the feature be present in stable and beta ?
ideally yes. i have struggled to make it so. like Beta extends Stable I get type conflicts when i make it that way in this current structure. is there a PR that i can follow as a guide? i know it is a breaking change for beta but we are the only consumers of it . Not sure what is the guideline how we retire beta functionality when we promote it to stable . i can have a quick chat if you have time on this
@G0nza1es I'm not very familiar with this repo, haven't contributed here much, sorry :/ maybe @polomani or @BugGambit can help....
@G0nza1es the beta SDK extends the stable SDK. So as long as you don't break the implementation but just copy the API methods from beta to stable, then the beta SDK shouldn't break.
ok. initially i tried that but when i have the same types , i was having conflicting types. but will try one more time . maybe i was doing something wrong.
@BugGambit now done. not sure what went wrong last time but working now. would be good to get feedback.
@G0nza1es I see you left the beta implementation. You should remove it, since there is an implementation in stable package now and beta extends stable anyway.
So, remove entire packages/beta/src/api/files folder
@G0nza1es I see you left the beta implementation. You should remove it, since there is an implementation in stable package now and beta extends stable anyway.
So, remove entire
packages/beta/src/api/filesfolder
@polomani done. I yalc -ed both beta and stable in my local machine and no type errors 👍🏽
@G0nza1es FYI, this is a breaking change to the beta SDK. I am working on releasing v10, which will include a new major version for all packages.
Can I suggest you change the base branch for this PR from master to release-v10?
@G0nza1es FYI, this is a breaking change to the beta SDK. I am working on releasing v10, which will include a new major version for all packages. Can I suggest you change the base branch for this PR from
mastertorelease-v10?
I can do that but as beta extends stable. when this is merged new beta users should be able to use sdk without any breaking change. beta-sdk has a stable-sdk dependency . am i wrong to think like that ? if so i can rebase it to that branch
@G0nza1es FYI, this is a breaking change to the beta SDK. I am working on releasing v10, which will include a new major version for all packages. Can I suggest you change the base branch for this PR from
mastertorelease-v10?I can do that but as beta extends stable. when this is merged new beta users should be able to use sdk without any breaking change.
beta-sdkhas astable-sdkdependency . am i wrong to think like that ? if so i can rebase it to that branch
@BugGambit can you share you opinion on this? also we know we are the only user andother consumers are waiting for beta to be moved to stable ?
@G0nza1es Ok, if you are sure you are the only users, then I happy with breaking it. There are still some unresolved comments in this PR