New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes in patch version #478
Comments
hey @IceCreamYou! Thanks for your feedback. Since version 2.0, the output has already not been ES5 compliant and required some ES6 features, namely The location of outward facing distribution files has also not changed, not sure what change you are referring to? Since version 2.0, files were placed in Source files should be published, this is a bug in package.json that I'll fix. |
Source files were supposed to have been published all along. See #478.
Hmm, I guess so. I noticed the ES6 break because we use esbuild and esbuild will throw an error if you try to downlevel
In 2.2.8 we used |
Ooh, right! Sorry about that. I guess right now we only ship the minified dist. |
Hello and thanks for the work you do on hashids.js.
Per semver, I normally expect patch releases to be backwards-compatible. But the jump between 2.2.8 and 2.2.9 of this module changed the location of dist files and changed the output to ES6. Moving files around is not such a big deal but I am in an environment that requires ES5 output, so this is a breaking change that requires me to introduce a new step to our build pipeline to downlevel the hashids output. Currently we only use
tsc
to downlevel to ES5, but the hashids TypeScript source is not included in the package, so that means I also have to add a new dependency or figure out some other way to make this work.I'm not complaining about the changes per se - I mean, things were working for me before and now they're not working, but how you do builds is your call, and I don't want to be annoying about it. What I would prefer though is if a change of this magnitude got a major release or at least a minor release, and if the changes were covered in the release notes, so the users of this module could better anticipate when extra work is likely to be required for an upgrade.
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: