Hi Matt, Oh right, so especially given the plugin is marked experimental, in-place approach would make a lot of sense…
By saying “experimental” I was thinking of marking the API messages as “in-progress” [0] - which would then exempt them from the change enforcements and allow further iterations on the api unconstrained. --a [0] https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/ApiChangeProcess > On 15 Jul 2022, at 17:41, Matthew Smith via lists.fd.io > <mgsmith=netgate....@lists.fd.io> wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > Neale and I are the maintainers of linux-cp. I am ok with changing it in > place because the use of "namespace" is preventing Stanislav from even being > able to compile his code. > > When you say "mark the APIs as experimental" are you talking about putting > "state: experimental" in the FEATURE.yaml file or something else? If you're > talking about FEATURE.yaml, the file at src/plugins/linux-cp/FEATURE.yaml > already lists the state as experimental. Maybe the formatting of the file is > bad? > > Thanks, > -Matt > > >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 4:14 AM Andrew Yourtchenko <ayour...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Hi Stanislav, >> >> The api is marked as “Production” so the behavior of checkstyle is there to >> protect the users (as for the duplication - it is a choice to do it once in >> VPP or in each and every downstream consumer). As for the pure code exercise >> - I just did it for the sake of a test, took a grand total of 15 minutes to >> add the new message versions. Hardly a massive deal. (We could probably >> improve tooling on the lifecycle management of these, though) >> >> That said - for this specific case - is the presence of the “namespace” >> member in a structure within the api a showstopper for you - that is, does >> it cause a compilation failure of some sort ? If so - one option is to mark >> the APIs as experimental and then change it in-place. It is up to component >> owners to decide the policy. >> >> --a >> >>>> On 15 Jul 2022, at 09:39, Stanislav Zaikin <zsta...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> Hello folks, >>> >>> According to [0] it should be possible to add breaking changes to vpp api >>> with incrementing the major version of the api. There's one issue in the >>> LCP api - a C++ keyword "namespace" is used there and I want to change it >>> to "netns" and increase a major version. But make checkstyle-api still >>> fails. Any ideas? >>> >>> Of course, I can add new methods _v2 and deprecate the older ones. But it'd >>> lead to code duplication and still I'd need to wait at least 2 releases. >>> >>> [0] https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP/API_Versioning >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards >>> Stanislav Zaikin >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#21673): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/21673 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/92396431/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/leave/1480452/21656/631435203/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
