Skip to content

MR ls number parameter is not backwards compatible #215

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

Closed
G07cha opened this issue Aug 27, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

MR ls number parameter is not backwards compatible #215

G07cha opened this issue Aug 27, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@G07cha
Copy link

G07cha commented Aug 27, 2018

Hey, I really like using your tool but recently when I've upgraded from 0.12.x to 0.13.x I discovered that perPage parameter was changed to number in lab mr ls. And I was surprised to see it's gone without any depredication warnings or major version update. Is it ok for you if I update this parameter to be backward compatible?

@zaquestion
Copy link
Owner

@G07cha, yeah the big change was removing pagination from the user. Instead of specifying the items per page you just specify how may items you want total and we fetch them.

There isn't really a way to keep per page anymore since the field is set automatically based on the number. What's causing you to need perpage?

@G07cha
Copy link
Author

G07cha commented Aug 27, 2018

That's true, I don't really find any issues with number parameter, in particular, I'm just confused with the way how it was handled according to semantic versioning. I also need to make sure that all of my coworkers updated their lab CLI to the latest version.

@zaquestion
Copy link
Owner

@G07cha yeah, I concede its a pretty clear break in semantic version. For some context we made these changes from #185 where we concluded that the existing functionality wasn't useful.

Appreciate the feedback here, this is my first project with any attention and as a pet project its still hard for me to imagine that some changes impact people, particularly when the existing implementation feels broken.

Taking a look at the backlog, there isn't anything else that should introduce breaking changes until 1.0 and I'll keep this in mind should things come up. Likewise if theres anything you and your team would like to see please open more issues!

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