+1 on Semantic Versioning.

-1 on breaking the existing API again. There's no point versioning if we
make breaking changes without changing the version.


On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Amir Yeshurun <[email protected]> wrote:

> +1 for choosing a versioning philosophy
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:15 PM Dewayne Richardson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, the versioning wasn't consistent because we switched out the
> database
> > to Postgres which had several impacts to the API. The issue with API
> routes
> > being too granular in the versioning is tricky because the consumers of
> the
> > API will need to change as the versions of Traffic Ops moves forward.
> Now
> > that we are on Postgres we plan on a new versioning scheme with /api/v2/*
> > which we will shortly introduce.  The goal with /api/v2 will be to keep
> the
> > response format the same, with the intention of deprecating the /api/1.x
> > routes.
> >
> > Another goal we have is to build an API test tool (now that more CRUD
> > routes are available), which will help with consistency in the API as
> well
> > as help us with regression testing (more to come on this front).
> >
> > -Dewayne
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Hank Beatty <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I recently ran into an issue where one of my scripts that uses the TO
> API
> > > stopped working correctly. It was failing in such a way that if I had
> not
> > > been in there updating something else I never would have known it was
> not
> > > working correctly. This failure was due to a change in the TO API
> version
> > > 1.2. I wrote the script using version 1.2 and the version I'm testing
> > > against now is also 1.2.
> > >
> > > I would like to suggest that we chose a versioning philosophy for the
> TO
> > > API. The site http://semver.org/ offers a good philosophy to follow.
> > This
> > > also happens to be the one ATS uses.
> > >
> > > Let's please choose a versioning philosophy so that issues like the
> one I
> > > describe above can be avoided.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Hank
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to