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

v2.6.1 broke compatiblity #112

Open
KOBA789 opened this issue Jan 22, 2025 · 3 comments
Open

v2.6.1 broke compatiblity #112

KOBA789 opened this issue Jan 22, 2025 · 3 comments

Comments

@KOBA789
Copy link
Member

KOBA789 commented Jan 22, 2025

v2.6.1 renamed "entries" field in Telemetry.
This change should bump up major version.

error[E0609]: no field `entries` on type `&Telemetry`
   --> src/access/tlm/schema.rs:107:54
    |
107 |         let fields = Box::new(iter_fields(&telemetry.entries).filter_map(|(obs, field)| {
    |                                                      ^^^^^^^ unknown field
    |
    = note: available fields are: `name`, `metadata`, `content`

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0609`.
error: could not compile `gaia-ccsds-c2a` (lib) due to 1 previous error
error: failed to verify package tarball
Error: Process completed with exit code 101.

https://github.com/arkedge/gaia/actions/runs/12824541755/job/35760854684

@sksat
Copy link
Member

sksat commented Jan 24, 2025

I strongly agree > This change should bump up major version

BUT on the other hand, we have already had some discussions and internal announcements regarding "v3" (ex: #26 ), so we can't bump up major naively............

@sksat
Copy link
Member

sksat commented Jan 24, 2025

We have multiple "compatibility" aspects of "tlmcmddb".
As a result, compatibility handling (& actual versioning) must take all of these into consideration.

In addition, since "tlmcmddb" is a schema arrangement, the most careful attention of these needs to be given to data compatibility (not code).

@sksat
Copy link
Member

sksat commented Jan 24, 2025

Also, this is not a 2.6.1 issue, but a 2.6 issue; the changes included in 2.6 were previously found to have broken other compatibilities, and 2.6.0 is yanked.

Therefore, the option exists to yank it again and release 2.6.2, although (library) compatibility cannot be ensured unless we give up #24 entirely, since it is caused by an intentional change in the public field.

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

2 participants