You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We need to scope the remaining set of features necessary to be considered at "feature parity" with the other SDKs. It's going to be a bit of an art because there is no single SDK which is identical to the other, but we should be able to come to a consensus.
One way to consider the output of this work is to define a set of unit tests, a la test driven development.
This work may include redesigning existing features within this code repo.
We could spend 40 hours on this ticket alone, but I don't think anyone wants to do that, so we I vote we settle for "good enough." For starters, I'll aggregate existing tickets, but this list is not to be considered comprehensive.
We'll need to account for #215 prior to being considered "feature parity" -- albeit if I'm understanding things correctly this is a divergence from most of our other SDKs, where peer dependencies run rampant, I think this is a divergence worthwhile because offloading version compatibility matching to the consumer developer seems like a non-starter to me.
We need to scope the remaining set of features necessary to be considered at "feature parity" with the other SDKs. It's going to be a bit of an art because there is no single SDK which is identical to the other, but we should be able to come to a consensus.
One way to consider the output of this work is to define a set of unit tests, a la test driven development.
This work may include redesigning existing features within this code repo.
cc @kirahsapong @nitro-neal
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: