Skip to content

Conversation

ePaul
Copy link
Member

@ePaul ePaul commented Oct 7, 2025

Triggered by a discussion in an internal chat (internal link), this makes it clearer which of the compatibility rules apply for input and output schemas, respectively.

@ePaul ePaul added the editorial label Oct 7, 2025
* Never change the semantic of fields (e.g. changing the semantic from
customer-number to customer-id, as both are different unique customer keys)
customer-number to customer-id, as both are different unique customer keys)
* Consider <<251>> in case a URL has to change.
Copy link
Member Author

@ePaul ePaul Oct 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This pointed wrongly to rule 250 before. (251 was originally added as 250 in #762 to a feature branch, but then #759 adding 250 was merged first to main before #781 renamed it and merged it into main.)

I also have a separate PR #852 to fix just this (already merged).

@ePaul ePaul force-pushed the compatibility-separately-for-input-output branch from 7154a27 to 099c0c6 Compare October 8, 2025 08:47
@ePaul ePaul added the major Major feature changes or updates, e.g. feature rollout to a new country, new API calls. label Oct 8, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

editorial major Major feature changes or updates, e.g. feature rollout to a new country, new API calls.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant