-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
@azure/communication-common Azure Core 2.0 Migration #20337
@azure/communication-common Azure Core 2.0 Migration #20337
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer. What is Check Enforcer?Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass. Why am I getting this message?You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged. What should I do now?If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows: What if I am onboarding a new service?Often, new services do not have validation pipelines associated with them, in order to bootstrap pipelines for a new service, you can issue the following command as a pull request comment: |
The PR contains a new version of the auth policy that is used by several ACS modalities (SMS, ShortCodes, NetworkTraversal, Identity, PhoneNumbers). To preserve the backward compatibility and allow gradual onboarding by the aforementioned modalities, I'm keeping both the old and the new version of the policy. To avoid naming collisions while not having to suffix the new one with sth like "V2", I've decided to use slightly different names for the new policy:
Also, all these methods are marked as @hidden to be excluded from the docs, and I marked the old ones with @deprecated. I was considering removing the old policy entirely since it's marked as Both have their pros and cons. If we delete the old one, we should migrate all the client libs in a single PR...a bit more work but less code to maintain in the end. If we stick with the current approach, we allow for gradual onboarding and still can decide to remove it later, once everyone's onboarded. I was discussing it with @DominikMe and he's also not 100% sure which approach shall we take in this case and recommended asking you folks. @xirzec @bterlson Could you please let me know what approach you would recommend and if it's the current one, then approve the related API view? |
Our normal approach in these sorts of situations (we're updating a core package) is to bump the major version and do the break (so ditch the old policies and export the new ones with the same name) and then have dependent packages upgrade incrementally. |
I agree with @xirzec. |
@xirzec @ramya-rao-a thanks both! I'll update the PR then to remove the old policy and the dependency on fyi @AlonsoMondal - It seems it could help us resolve the other issue we are facing when trying to migrate the libraries dependent on |
@xirzec I have removed the old policy and replaced it with a new one. No APIView has been generated, I suspect it's because I have bumped the major version as you suggested. Can you please give a final approval so that we can merge this PR? The API change is visible here: https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-js/pull/20337/files#diff-aa1c3b86239992f00aa0ef7192f0f24632b66e2a0b086a001189b2670cba75e7 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
API changes look good! Thanks for the update! 👍
@xirzec in the end, I managed to create an API view for this PR manually. can you please approve it there as well? edit:
|
API changes have been detected in API changes - createCommunicationAccessKeyCredentialPolicy: (credential: KeyCredential) => RequestPolicyFactory
- createCommunicationAuthPolicy: (credential: KeyCredential | TokenCredential) => RequestPolicyFactory
+ export declare function createCommunicationAccessKeyCredentialPolicy(credential: KeyCredential): PipelinePolicy;
+ export declare function createCommunicationAuthPolicy(credential: KeyCredential | TokenCredential): PipelinePolicy; |
I approved both! so you're super approved. 😆 |
Lets go! Lets go! |
[Hub Generated] Publish private branch 'datafactory/mash/feature/GoogleSheets/swaggerNew' (Azure#20337) * [AutoSync] 41dd785da9 GoogleSheets Swagger changes * [AutoSync] 41dd785da9 GoogleSheets Swagger changes Co-authored-by: swagger-automation <swagger@microsoft.com>
Packages impacted by this PR
Issues associated with this PR
Describe the problem that is addressed by this PR
What are the possible designs available to address the problem? If there are more than one possible design, why was the one in this PR chosen?
Are there test cases added in this PR?
Provide a list of related PRs (if any)
Checklists
Changes
/src/credential/auth-policy-v1/
/src/credential/auth-policy-v2/
(based on@azure/core-rest-pipeline
)@azure/core-http
to minimum (enable easier future removal of the dependency)npx madge --circular --extensions ts ./
)SubtleCrypto
& related shimsMigration guide for ACS modalities
createCommunicationAuthPolicy
->createCommunicationAuthenticationPolicy
createCommunicationAuthenticationPolicy
->createCommunicationAuthenticationPolicy