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
Currently the package's manifest says that it's compatible with any version of @sentry/node.
I think you could improve robustness of the package by defining the @sentry/node version as 8. Or maybe even more versions, like >= 7.60 < 9, since I see in your package-lock.json that you're using 7.60 locally when developing the package (so I bet it works with 7.60). It might turn out in the future that there will be a particular minor version of 8 that is incompatible, but it's way better to at least specify the major than *. Also, I don't expect Sentry to do a breaking change in a minor version.
Why the request? I've just experienced an issue with a Nest project that was using [email protected] and upgraded its @sentry/node to 8.12 without upgrading nest-raven. Unfortunately nest-raven in version 10.0.1 turned out not to be compatible with @sentry/node@8, because they deprecated the Handlers.parseRequest you were using there (and you've dropped it in the newest version, I've seen the #650 PR).
If the old 10.0.1 version declared its peer dependency on @sentry/node as 7, devs would know that nest-raven was incompatible with @sentry/node@8 (package manager would warn me about that) and I'd review the incompatible dependencies and searched for compatible versions.
I'm not suggesting to retroactively fix the manifest for the old versions (is that even possible?), but if you could start defining the peer dependency for @sentry/node for the next nest-raven versions more precisely, somebody might avoid a broken HTTP interceptor (returning 500 errors) in their project. 🙌
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hey @akwodkiewicz, thanks for creating this issue. We should definitely constrain versions of all peerDependencies in our package.json.
Retroactively is impossible, best we could do is to mark those old releases as "deprecated" to warn people or something. But i doubt it's worth it?
Another thing we could do to improve robustness of the module is to use something like this test-all-versions tool, which we could use to run test suite against multiple versions of @sentry/node.
There might be some other consequences of deprecating old versions (maybe old versions are the only ones working with some older versions of Nest, and you'd be forcing people to upgrade Nest this way).
Anyway, it's great to hear some ideas on how to extend the solution!
PS We'll be upgrading nest-raven to the latest version, so I just wanted to ask -- do you know if it works with @sentry/node@8?😄
Currently the package's manifest says that it's compatible with any version of
@sentry/node
.I think you could improve robustness of the package by defining the
@sentry/node
version as8
. Or maybe even more versions, like>= 7.60 < 9
, since I see in yourpackage-lock.json
that you're using7.60
locally when developing the package (so I bet it works with 7.60). It might turn out in the future that there will be a particular minor version of8
that is incompatible, but it's way better to at least specify the major than*
. Also, I don't expect Sentry to do a breaking change in a minor version.Why the request? I've just experienced an issue with a Nest project that was using
[email protected]
and upgraded its@sentry/node
to8.12
without upgradingnest-raven
. Unfortunatelynest-raven
in version10.0.1
turned out not to be compatible with@sentry/node@8
, because they deprecated theHandlers.parseRequest
you were using there (and you've dropped it in the newest version, I've seen the #650 PR).If the old
10.0.1
version declared its peer dependency on@sentry/node
as7
, devs would know thatnest-raven
was incompatible with@sentry/node@8
(package manager would warn me about that) and I'd review the incompatible dependencies and searched for compatible versions.I'm not suggesting to retroactively fix the manifest for the old versions (is that even possible?), but if you could start defining the peer dependency for
@sentry/node
for the nextnest-raven
versions more precisely, somebody might avoid a broken HTTP interceptor (returning 500 errors) in their project. 🙌The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: