Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
v3.3.2
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
adriantoine committed Mar 8, 2018
1 parent b12686a commit f5181d4
Showing 1 changed file with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion package.json
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
{
"version": "3.3.1",
"version": "3.3.2",
"name": "enzyme-to-json",
"description": "convert enzyme wrapper to a format compatible with Jest snapshot",
"main": "index.js",
Expand Down

6 comments on commit f5181d4

@srapp
Copy link

@srapp srapp commented on f5181d4 Mar 8, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I appreciate your updates to this library, but the most recent release changed how snapshots are generated and probably should've been at least a minor version change instead of a patch. When we upgraded to the most recent version, it ended up breaking our tests. It was simple enough to regenerate the snapshots, but this seems like something that could've been prevented with stricter versioning.

Thanks again for your continued work. Cheers! πŸ‘

@adriantoine
Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @srapp, I understand that was a breaking change for most people, I sent an email to NPM support this afternoon to unpublish this version so I can publish a major version instead but I still didn't get any answer.

Although that's entirely my fault and I apologise for the inconvenience.

@tkomstadius
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi! I was just wondering about the behavior of the removal of the defaultProps. In our snapshots, it seems as though defaultProps of type Object {}, [Function] and boolean values get removed but not empty strings. Is this an active choice?

@ronaldlokers
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmmm, it just took us 2 hours to find out why snapshots on 2 computers where different because you unpublished the 3.3.2 version :(

@adriantoine
Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@tkomstadius It looks like a bug, can you provide a small example and open an issue? Thanks!

@ronaldlokers Yes it was unpublished because it was mistakenly published as a patch version while it was actually a breaking change, so it should have been published as a major version. My mistake was to publish it as a patch version not to unpublish it. This 3.3.2 version will be published as a 4.0.0 version soon. I apologise for the inconvenience!

@apaatsio
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IMO the correct procedure would be to release a new version (3.3.3) where the breaking changes introduced in 3.3.2 were reverted. Then release those breaking changes as 4.0.0. It causes a lot of confusion when a release is removed, as we can see from the comments here. But good to hear that the 4.0.0 is on the way.

Please sign in to comment.