Skip to content

Conversation

excitement-engineer
Copy link
Contributor

Following the discussion in issue #968, adding a new value to an enum is now considered a dangerous change.

@excitement-engineer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Given @leebyron's comment. Should Interface and Union expansions be considered 'dangerous' as well? If so, then I will update the PR accordingly.

@wincent
Copy link
Contributor

wincent commented Aug 7, 2017

Thanks for this, @excitement-engineer.

Should Interface and Union expansions be considered 'dangerous' as well? If so, then I will update the PR accordingly.

I would think so, but I'd almost prefer them to be separate PRs so that we have the ability to revert individually if something goes wrong.

@wincent wincent merged commit b6a46a0 into graphql:master Aug 7, 2017
@excitement-engineer
Copy link
Contributor Author

@wincent Thanks for checking the code.

I will create separate PRs for the dangerous changes related to interface and union extensions when I find some spare time:) Thanks for your help!

@excitement-engineer excitement-engineer deleted the enum-dangerous-change branch August 7, 2017 15:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants