Skip to content
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

Deprecated processors should have a descriptive deprecated note #2317

Closed
bsideup opened this issue Aug 10, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2334
Closed

Deprecated processors should have a descriptive deprecated note #2317

bsideup opened this issue Aug 10, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2334
Assignees
Labels
type/documentation A documentation update
Milestone

Comments

@bsideup
Copy link
Contributor

bsideup commented Aug 10, 2020

Currently, the deprecated processors have @deprecated Prefer clear cut usage of Sinks. but it does not say which one.

To easy the migration from Processors to Sinks API, we should add a better deprecation message per processor, with examples of how previous various constructs can be rewritten with this new Sinks API.

@reactorbot reactorbot added the ❓need-triage This issue needs triage, hasn't been looked at by a team member yet label Aug 10, 2020
@bsideup bsideup added the type/documentation A documentation update label Aug 10, 2020
@bsideup bsideup added this to the 3.4.0 milestone Aug 10, 2020
@rstoyanchev
Copy link
Contributor

I think they used to be there but got lost in subsequent iterations.

@simonbasle simonbasle modified the milestones: 3.4.0, 3.4.0-RC1 Aug 12, 2020
@simonbasle simonbasle removed the ❓need-triage This issue needs triage, hasn't been looked at by a team member yet label Aug 14, 2020
@aneveu aneveu linked a pull request Aug 26, 2020 that will close this issue
simonbasle added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 3, 2020
Co-authored-by: Simon Baslé <sbasle@vmware.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type/documentation A documentation update
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants