AsyncAPI Related to AsyncAPI Spec 3.0 release, 29 Mar 2023

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Spec 3.0 meeting (March 29th 2023)

Description

https://github.com/asyncapi/community/issues/640

A

Five minutes lessons like I, don't want to sit and talk to myself for five minutes. That's.

B

Just always entertain people like talk about like.

A

Why typescript.

B

Is better than JavaScript, for example,.

A

I can't there's no way you.

C

B

C

B

No good arguments to share about this topic. This particular topic.

A

All right, less debatable, yeah.

A

C

Sure so apparently Haiku can cannot join today and I'm, not sure if sir he will be joining around, but.

A

Let's see then.

C

There might be doing maybe just a minute I, don't know.

A

Maybe I could just give an update, maybe on.

A

um So I've we don't have anything for the agenda, so if any of you folks have anything, you want to bring up so far. Otherwise I think I can give a rough update.

C

B

C

Yes, one thing so hiker was uh saying on the channel today that he wanted to. He wanted to bring on the topic of. uh We should not be using avra for headers or defining headers that doesn't make sense, and so I replied on the channel, but I just want to continue the conversation here. So I replied saying that it makes sense, because Kafka users use avra for both things right for for headers and for and for payload.

C

So and schema registry supports it. Confluence schema registry support set, so so yeah I think it makes sense.

B

And it's not a big deal like if you're gonna support conversion from abroad to Json schema Force.

C

He meant that that um yeah like if we got if we're I, mean I'm speaking for himself so I'm, not sure if he meant that or not but uh I'm I'm. Assuming that his concern is that, if ever is possible, then um um protobuf should be possible there as well right or might be possible as they as well there and and yeah. That's um that's not usually the case. I I've never seen that so so yeah um or might be I, don't know.

C

I have I, really don't know much about the RPC in protobuf, so so yeah, but might be that they Define headers with protocols.

A

I have no idea actually.

C

In any case, what doesn't make sense is that we Define, for instance, server variables and channel parameters and all this stuff with with any schema language that doesn't that's an Overkill to me, like that's too much. That's something specific. These things don't go beyond the async API right, so not unlike headers and payload. These things are going Beyond this in kpi scope right, but General parameters, it's something for a Singapore, nothing else, and so everybody apples something this is for us.

C

So let's just keep it simple and offer just one way to do it and that's it.

A

Yeah, so you talk you're, basically talking about you, want it as simple, like not having two schemas for one for headers, basically and one for uh payloads and having two different sets right.

C

But nope no I, don't understand your. What you said. Can you repeat so.

A

What I understood from what you said, you agree that you should be able to have Avro in hitter, so to find us in headers right.

A

And you also like the idea of not having two distinct ways of defining schemas as far as I understand as well right, because at the moment, when you define hitters, there's nothing called schema format. There's nothing that exists in that area, where you can define something different right, yeah.

C

That's true, yeah yeah.

A

C

A

Standardize those things right as.

C

Of today, yes of today, schema format only affects uh the payload, but not the headers yeah. Yes,.

A

Same with parameters.

C

Yeah I guess yeah yeah yeah, but yeah, but parameters and and everybody will still be like completely different thing like they should be uh a different list. I, don't think they should even be schemas but yeah.

A

Well, I I get what you're saying yeah they.

C

Should be like super super, simplified versions of a schema so much that it doesn't make sense to call them schemas.

A

But don't you think there is Merit to having not that I've seen so much of it, but, for example, for parameters or for hitters for that matter? Wouldn't it be a use case that you can constrain a string, for example,.

A

Values or parameters.

C

Or yeah you can have enorms I mean for headers I will give it the same. uh Let's say priority as in payload headers and payload to mirror to something uh in terms of like they. They both should be first class citizens right, so headers and payload could be defined with abroad. So so we should allow people to have schemas full schemas in the headers and so on. That's completely fine. What I mean is that for several variables and for um parameters, Channel parameters, those two things in my in my opinions will not be called schemas.

C

You know, like I, mean not cold schemas. We can call them schemas, but these will be using like super simplified versions of schema like enums default, the type, um maybe not even the type, because yeah in the end, uh everything is a string. Once you are a channel parameter, everything is a string once you are in a server variable. uh Everything is a string, so it's it. It reaches a point where everything is Extreme but yeah. That's debatable! Maybe type is it's? Okay, it's okay there, but, um but that's it.

C

Maybe an innum, maybe a uh default, and uh in the description and a type and that's it and I, don't think I don't know. Maybe you can have minimum and maximum in case there's a number.

C

um That's it I, don't think anyone else will have any other needs, like any other needs for, for that specific value. Right, like uh value in um in my channel parameter, uh it's super complex to validate and or super complex to Define. uh No must probably I mean in in my whole career. All I've seen is.

C

This is just Dynamic value. This is a dynamic string and it means that that's it I don't care it's a string. It's not even constrained constrained, or at most it's constrained to have a few set of values, and that's it um like, for instance, here you can have the channel for the US for Europe and for whatever so there there you can put us EU and whatever other values, but that's it. So that's all I've seen in my whole career that you really have that simple kind of sets on the channel Maybe.

C

Maybe the user ID, maybe one part of the channel name, is the user. Id or or whatever ID, and then it's a number, that's it. That's all.

A

C

A

C

A

Basically, talking about having only structure there instead of constrained rules, your important structure, like you, want to.

C

A

C

Yes, yeah could be a constraint as well. If you think about it, it's a constrictor. This is super simple constraint, yeah, it's a super, simple constraint. It is not like I, don't think we should be supporting in Channel parameters or server variables like all of any of not you know. If, then else you know not to mention Avro protobuf and all this stuff right. That would be way too much right uh for those specific things that doesn't make sense to me. It's just uh it's too much.

C

I will honestly put it, make it super simple and test it and see if people complain and request support for something else, and if they require support for something else, then we added and then we add it and then we added and if at some point it becomes a schema, then we can then go back to you to schema definition like this is a schema because people are asking for it, because people are using it and so on, but I think that when I created version, two I went too far saying that these are schemas.

C

I went too far, maybe for the Simplicity. For me to December, this is ah yeah: it's a scheme, it's only there, but it's it's offered way too much capabilities. And now it's a problem.

A

But don't you think it will also on the other side, if you change what a parameter or how a parameter is defined and even a hitter, don't you think that it also complicates the spec itself to be more complex, to understand and remember where what fits, what, for example, that you need to remember that parameters can only be five keywords, let's just say five keywords: instead of having the full uh just a Json schema, even though that you don't use all of those keywords, we.

C

Or most of them it's we make this. This uh keywords the same as in Json schema. That's it sure. So you don't have to you. Don't have to remember them.

A

C

Any other ones, any other ones.

A

But if you read, if you need to understand the respect and read the spec file like the spec document, you would have an entire section only for defining that specific uh sub uh structure.

C

Yeah, that's completely fine! It's just what five six keywords: it's not a lot! We.

B

Have it with variables for servers anyway and.

C

Nobody complains.

B

Really yeah and it's like the same case- it's like example, defaults and description.

A

Yeah I haven't I, haven't actually yeah, it looks yeah more or less what you are saying.

C

Yeah, that's what I mean that we should make two things. The same, maybe give a little bit more uh power to the to those like. Maybe you can have minimum maximum if it's a number, but they cannot by any mean being an object or an array, because how how is it supposed to be serialized, then uh there are many ways to see realize an array to shrink.

C

So if we support arrays, then we should be saying how this will be serialized to string, because the channel is a string in the end right, so it has to be serialized as a string at some point. So if type is array, then we also have to specify and the way is utilize. It is like this uh because there are multiple ways to serialize a an array so and so I will not even do it at all, because why? Why would you have want to have a an array and a channel name right?

C

An um Channel address.

A

Don't you find it weird that we have it like I haven't seen one issue about it, like anyone complaining about it or having it being too complex, I haven't heard anything.

C

No, it's the way around I'm complaining about it. Now it's the way around, like it's so complex that now, if, if we leave it as a schema, then people will be able to point to Avro or to whatever other kind of schema, and we will have to implement it.

C

Okay, so that's what I mean it's not I am the first person complaining about it. Of course nobody complains because it's yeah.

B

Because, probably nobody uses it beyond the basics, because.

A

B

Don't like I, don't think we would be even able to be able to handle type objects. If somebody would use it, we don't even know how to implement. All of this, like, we always use the same keywords for.

C

Us, yes, more or less yeah.

A

The only difference I see is that headers are in the root always to find a subject. So you're gonna have some kind of Miss, not mismatch, but some complaints.

C

Yeah we have that rule on headers that it has to be a type object. Yeah, that's the only. It has to be a map of properties, um an object right.

C

That's the only thing that we yeah, because they're I mean no. Others is no system in the world. Supports I, don't know headers as an array or headers as a bowl in it's always a map of uh string string string. Actually, uh it's always a mapped of strings and strings. Those string, values might be. Numbers means your license string but yeah. It's like okay, fair enough. Let's just give people the chance to do it um to use the string to any.

A

Will the string always in headers will they will the string or the header value always be a string.

C

I think that's the case for every for every system, but I haven't checked but I, don't recall, being able I mean if you pass, you can pass a number. You can pass the word true or false, but I think they will be sent as a string, not a special values or anything like that. I may be wrong and there might be some systems who have which have more than than one type. It's just not not just strings.

C

I, honestly doubt it, but yeah might be. Who knows.

A

C

Again, it's just, you can pass a number, but as a string we can still live it. We can still live it. We can live it as a map of string to um what's it called.

C

How are the basic types usually called.

C

Numbers strings booleans. You know how are these calls Primitives yeah.

A

C

We can have string to Primitives, but now object or arrays or anything like that, nothing more complex, and then you can, you can give it some meaning. Okay, this is a. This is a a number um that goes that has this minimum and this maximum and so on.

C

You might want to apply whatever rule. You want to apply there whatever, but um but that's it only Primitives, because they are um they're only yeah I mean.

C

Maybe you want to have an array as a string as a as a header value, but uh but in any case you have to we have we will. Then we will have to explain how you serialize it. How do you serialize this array or an object as well? How do we serialize an object?

C

Is it going to be the basic presentation, or is it going to be separated by comma or.

A

What and this this suggestion is an alternative of both headers payloads and parameters all referred to the same schema object right within the spec.

C

Yeah, what I'm saying is that, at the very least, I think a different list, several variables and um Channel parameters should not be schemas, so not be referenced, should not be defined with a schema object. No then headers, it's our Google, but we can put constraints there. Whatever format you use, Avro whatever uh it has to be a map of strings to Primitives of this kind, blah blah blah and that's it fixation schema. You know how to do it. If it's ever, you know how to do it.

C

um You know if it's protobuf the same thing, but the header can a header's object cannot be a number because and then in a property cannot be an array or or an object. So it cannot go deeper than just one level properties you know or Properties or Fields or or items or how you call it in upload and other forms right. So um because that's too much I will put it just definition there. It can still be referencing a schema, but not whatever schema, so implementations should fail if they find something else.

C

Temptations I mean parser actually, if it finds something else.

C

So yeah, that's that's my point and I guess: that's that goes hand in hand with with hiker was saying: maybe he detected that that you could be using other than other type languages or other schema formats for one of these parts of the of the target?

C

B

Sorry because I'm in real time, watching the status page for GitHub and.

A

B

Wrote nice message like we are seeing signs of recovery I'm wondering what signs do they see everybody hates on it? Yeah.

C

Someone broke me up here, so I'm, seeing sign of recovery.

A

And we can we get any progress on that issue without heiko here.

C

A

The one with because this discussion is directly related to how we want to reuse schemas right, because because we want to reuse schemas with schema format together, it makes the problem or all of a sudden. Then the problem of headers and parameters are included in this scope of the issue. Right, yep.

A

So my question is more or less: how do we figure out whether hitters and parameters are or should be included in the scope of that issue and discussion, or whether it should be split out I.

C

Think because we.

A

Want to solve it differently, States will.

C

Be split out because actually Haiku can just focus on on saying that um on doing this, reusable schema formats and so on of different formats, and that's it uh that will that's all we'll see he will have to do and uh and then on a separate PR. We just um we just removed the from server variables and from schema I'm from Channel parameters. We remove the the reference to schema object.

C

Let me just look at that and that's it. We cut there and that's another problem anymore, but we will have to add, of course, some explanations there, which is completely fine. Some tables there of the accepted Fields, just mostly the same that we have on the on the server variables might be worth to I, don't know to extract as a another object.

B

C

Simple schema, object, I, don't know something like that. A super simple schema object. We can call it whatever we want um and um and Define that sentence on the headers that it has to be a type object, object um with Keys, being string and values being only Primitives of this type. This type in this type.

A

C

A

Basically, in that issue, we can only focus on payload, like we just like solely focus on that. It's payload that reference to this new type right and then that's the only thing the discussion goes well, not not.

C

The new type, the same type yeah.

B

C

Yeah yeah, we just changed type it so yeah.

C

Yes, yeah and remove schema format from from the message. Yes, of course, because.

A

It won't be needed anymore, mind uh writing that on the issue, thanks.

B

C

A

C

It uh hiding slaves for this.

A

Next, up update.

A

I did ask nicely peace.

C

So do we have do we have a issue for this separation of things, I, don't think so right. We.

A

Only have for the discussion about the schema format. Plushkima.

A

We don't have an issue for the hit a payload or hit us parameters. Etc.

C

All right perfect, so then I'm going to leave a reminder here, like with these.

A

B

I think there was issue about parameters uh because some time ago, yeah.

C

B

Actually wanted to do the opposite and push schema objects to variables.

C

Yeah, there's one channel parameter, location and consistency. No, no.

B

Well, yeah I think that that might be this one or not.

C

No, that's the location thing, the location field. Actually, this one is pretty good, no nice that would have been cool.

A

C

Wasn't surprised yes, I.

A

Couldn't remember so.

C

Inconsistency for consistencies for schemas in several variables and Generals yeah.

A

Did I create that no much? Oh, okay, perfect! It's not just because I have a bad memory. So that's good.

C

Well, that's also true. Yes,.

A

But let's not bring that up here, um all right little update. So in the last meeting we talked with Alejandra about the docs changes uh and she created this issue and the website repository that kind of encapsulates all of the different changes or major changes to the spec itself and then split them out into sub issues.

A

um I've added all of these issues as part of the general to-do list here just to keep track of who's championing what the Citron status of it so I'm I'm shrinking it between these two issues. For now.

A

C

On yeah I was just trying to scroll on the on the video on your screen. I was trying to scroll through below.

A

I can send you the link, so you can do it yourself, I.

C

Was like when is it not working laughs.

A

All right so yeah, um so that has all of them. We need to figure out how we can push each of those things and move them forward, and but I'm I was kind of hoping that Alejandra would be here today, but um we need to figure out how how we're going to do that.

A

um I also added two more issues which is the migration guide. So we need some kind of migration documentation on the website of moving from version 2 to version 3.

A

and then also the release notes as a blog post. Basically,.

A

Furthermore, I've added another to do, which is we need to figure out which tools need to be updated for version free support. I know that some tools already have it I'm, pretty sure Marlena is almost there might need a minor I'm, not sure, but we have all of these tools Beyond this parcel itself as well, so we just need to figure out what's needed and where and which tools already ready.

A

um Then I added all of the general stuff that we had from all of the other work uh releases, um which is basically just about merging everything, um but yeah I am this one here is gonna, be split out into so I have a specific section only for having all of the tooling information here, tooling progression, I'm thinking about adding a a section per tool to State whether or not its supports version free unit, current state and what's needed, like in general.

A

If anything is needed and then ping, the code owners with an issue or something and Mark that as being complete to move forward um and to split out the responsibility.

A

um But I'll figure out when to do that.

A

um Sergio did some yeah you're already fixing this Lucas so I'm not sure about that.

A

Not sure about that, but that's Tokyo.

B

Yeah, it's it's not 3-0 related, basically we're breaking it now.

A

Basically, um all right back to the update, um I've I removed the entire back burner section, because there's no backbone anymore. uh We have the fridge period basically in place, besides those two outstanding issues or three, depending on how you see it with the headers and parameters. But that's what that is so I removed that entire section um and that's basically, the updates I- did for the the for this issue, and then we had didn't Define anywhere that it was released for June I've, defined that in the issue itself, that it is scheduled for June.

A

And that's it that's uh kind of progression update. um We still have some out there outstanding issues for trades.

A

Look at your Sergio said something in the chat right, yeah.

C

Magic matek said that he hopefully can work on this this weekend, um but if not Sergey will probably jump into it. If he can't do it on the next week or something like that he's just giving much at some time.

A

And this one haiko, basically not hijacked but hijacked and is championing yeah and there's still no agreement upon which specific change need to happen and I'm not entirely sure what he needs to progress. And since he's not here today might need an update next time. Not sure if any of you have.

C

Didn't we agree, like I, mean softly agreed that it will be under schemas existence, schemas sectional components, right that we will have something like a format for the schema format, and then another keyword would be I, don't know, schema itself and and inside the schema keyword there will be the schema and that's it. That's all we'll have to do.

A

um Might be yeah but I know that's one of the proposed Solutions.

C

But I think yeah, yeah but I know I, know it's one of them, but I think we agreed on this one, but.

B

C

As we, of course uh well not as long I mean the only concern that was there is that we could then cross-reference different types of schemas um yeah, that's true, which you can anyway, do it now, right you can, you can on payload, you can have an abroad that will reference a or a Json schema in one version, the reference is another discount scheme and another version. So so this is really possible, so yeah, but we might want to add some paragraph there saying that you don't you cannot do this.

C

This is not allowed and the implementations should not support them. That's it. uh We don't I, don't think we have to complicate our lives beyond that. As long as as it's it's explicit explicitly mentioned, then it's more than enough I guess uh I mean if I were a haiko or haiko if you're watching the recording go for it, make this proposal like like this, if you didn't lose it already, which I think probably it's already done, and.

C

um And if not, we can get right there, of course, after this change, that's what I would.

A

Yep sounds good to me.

A

Or request reply, we don't have any change in the parcel yet or even a proposed change. We do have one for uh the Json schema files for the spec itself.

A

I am not sure what is missing from this one.

C

Let's see well we're missing a bunch of stuff from version three of the parsers I guess yeah I, don't know once it's on the this is keema file that we can probably add it to the parser, easily yeah, but much more easier. I, don't know.

A

Looks like the magic needs to do a few changes here, but other than that yeah. We need to adapt the puzzle.

A

Then you have this, unify all references, that's done also in the parser.

C

ah No sorry, that's not the other person.

C

Okay, I, don't know if it's required something in the concert. I'll have to check.

A

It might be regarding depends on how those old references.

C

Scopes available Scopes, that's the only thing, that's changing!

C

So probably that's the only change.

A

But isn't this something.

A

Yeah, it's this one right, that's the main one. Oh.

C

A

Yeah yeah yeah, true yeah, I'm, not sure so, I guess this is still outstanding. Yes, do you mind creating just an issue for it? Just so I can track it here in the parcel itself.

A

Yeah, just just an issue, so we can track it here when it's uh merged and introduce changes form oh yeah, I think that's more or less that.

B

um Not it then, so the question is somehow also related to 2.7 and the Proto buff. So do you know like uh so haiko still wants to push it for 2.7, the um the.

A

B

Addition of the of the schema not schema of the of this schema format, like recommended schema format,.

A

Yeah, you are talking about this official schema format for xsd and photo buffering.

B

A

He said he wanted to push this forward. At least I didn't tag him, so I don't know if he wants to, um but yeah I haven't heard any further, and especially not regarding version 2.7 or whether he intends to do it for version free I, don't know.

B

Because we still have this, um so one thing is that we we know that support for referencing, Proto and xsd and other non-json can be done later, but but um we need to prepare spec for it as well. That's this dollar ref uh comment I made in this request from front you're, not sure if you recall.

C

Yeah, we have to clarify that um clarify.

B

Description and making sure like opening up opening it up for future that um dollar ref is not the only keyword.

C

Oh this one, you mean okay,.

B

Yeah yeah, but I.

C

Thought you meant the the paragraph on the on the payload on the message. Payload there's a paragraph that might or could be understood that that the one that speaks about Abra in lightning abro as yamir or Jason, but not as a string blah blah blah.

B

Right but this I assume it's related to Proto, to 2.2.7 right yeah.

C

So so I I wanted to yeah yeah. Sorry I was doing something else and I completely lost track, but yeah this one needs to be done on the product. Protobuf related stuff front.

C

Yes, this one correct yeah, that's it sorry. Sorry I thought you were talking about this.

B

One, but this one is not 3-0 right.

A

I just created it, so there's no target for it, whether or when it should be clarified.

C

I, honestly, don't care if we do it on three zero or two seven, no.

B

I mean that it's not a breaking change, but that's what I.

C

Mean no, no, no yeah. So it's just a little change yeah, but.

B

The other topic I'm mentioning is it's breaking changes. The updating, the reference object, description, yeah, yeah,.

C

B

So this I mean like I, I I, can't imagine we're not doing it for 3-0, because we we need to open it up um when.

C

B

Will open it up for more um options in the future, like.

C

Yeah, that's that's why I wanted to rename this dollar after ref, so we leave it super like super open and generic, and then we can just change it to whatever we want, but yeah I. Think it's better like this, like we just changed the reference object. We live it, hoping, as you said and and I think we should do it on 3-0, because this is a very foreseeable breaking change right.

C

So we're we're ready for seeing it so yeah I think we saw take advantage of this now and and change it a little bit like super wide open.

A

But what do you foresee that we can actually change in the spec itself, where it opens it up without being clear about what exactly will open into this one.

C

uh So right now, dollar ref uses Json pointer right.

C

Json reference it uses Json pointer and you cannot use it Json pointer for anything that is not uh Jason right, so I don't know. I.

B

Mean we basically have to specify that the reference object is not the same as as Json reference.

C

B

That's that's what they do in open API and they do it pretty smoothly. I think.

A

um And they allow.

B

Different keywords: next to it, which is not allowed by a reference object by Json reference.

C

A

ah Right: okay, gotcha, so.

C

In the future, what we could do is that we have this dollar rev, alongside with Evernote kind of ref or type of ref, which could be I, don't know the schema format expected to come from this little ref, I, don't know like um protobuf or xsd or whatever. So in this case, depending on this, second key should be interpreted in one way or another. I.

B

C

Know it's it's one option.

A

Right, okay, so what you're suggesting is that, instead of having only a pointer towards Json reference, we basically have more or less this that explicitly Define these or opens it up more for us to customize it down the road. Yes,.

B

Yeah, of course, without the summary and description because we don't need it, but um but yeah. Basically, almost the same I'll have to read it again, but uh I think it's going to be almost the.

C

Same yeah, actually, for now it will be just dollar ref. Without somewhere in description, it will be just a dollar ref, but it will not be the uh RFC whatever, whatever right or any distance schema defined uh thing it will be defined by as and then we Define there that um yeah it might contain other.

C

Ref is not strictly just for Json scheme or Json structures, and so on so I don't know whatever we could. We could put something there and we can even add an optional field alongside the Rev, which will be type or something like that, and by default is Json, schema or sorry is by default. It's Json, and um if you don't put it, it will work the same way as now, but it will only have this value for now, but in the future we might add more values like product above, like xsd, whatever.

A

As I recall, we also discussed instead of changing anything for the reference object. We talked about introducing something new for only the payload or the schema reference.

A

As far as I can remember some of our discussions. So instead of having this one also include something like you can reference non-json preferences, it's only in the payload that you were able to uh to do that so overall, in all other other areas of the spec, you use the reference up there in the schema like where you can Define the schema.

A

Where and in the schema format there, it can be not Json references, so we introduced something that specifically only for that area within the spec and not for the rest, because otherwise you might reference something like an XML document in the message object where it's like. No, that's not what it's intended for.

A

So as far as I can recall, we talked about that, but that might be wrong. It has been a while.

C

We can do the same thing as we did with the with, or that we want to do with headers right that we can put some constraints like paragraphs saying that you can only use dollar Rev in between the document like, but only with the type Json right um or no type which defaults to Json. So.

A

C

Sorry that that will require a change in the tooling, of course, on how we results got over there. We'll have to check for another field before resolving, but custom resolvers are already in place, so yeah.

A

As long as it's a superset of Json reference, but we add some extended stuff for non-json, then tooling should work out the bugs in most cases, unless you use that new functionality, but.

C

And tomorrow it's a type xsd and then dollar ref could easily point to an XML file and using, as the the last part of the URL, the the requirement, the fragment. So the fragment of the URL cool could be a an XML as you call it the XML pointer. What was the name of this.

C

So yeah and it will work because yeah the type is telling you that this is not a Json thing. It's a it's, a maximum thing, not perfect, but it will be. It will keep adding on top of the existing thing without breaking it right, but we need to do this change now. Otherwise it will be a breaking change right.

C

It will. It will, because then people will put dollar ref pointing to uh an xsd file, and but there isn't this other field here uh yeah, but it wasn't there before. um Well, no, it's not the breaking. It's not yeah, so the pricking change there's a it will not be forward compatible, but it will be backwards compatible. Yes, so.

A

C

A

Migrating and easy for it and the specs that we have somewhere to discuss it. Yes,.

B

Thank you, I mean yes, I, mind.

B

I I'll, just uh it's trivial task: I'll open PR tomorrow, I, don't like pro forma.

A

Issues: okay creation.

B

You do you yeah, let's do it, let's not, let's finish it as soon as possible.

A

A

Anything you want to add to last eight minutes.

A

No, the only thing I have is for documentation like we just need to figure out how to go forward because I at the moment, I, don't know exactly how to grasp that I'm kind of hoping that 100 have.

B

uh Probably the same as we do with other stuff, there has to be some release, Branch, where we can update Docs. So it doesn't wait for the release, but we can already do the updates to deducts.

A

B

But yeah, um let's figure out uh we'll talk: Fox Alejandra, she's.

B

Out now, because she's on a leaf writing book so she's back next week, all.

A

A

All right there's nothing else. Actually.

B

Writing book and taking care of a little puppy.

A

All right well, five minutes. What's it called when you are earlier, it's like it's falling at five minutes earlier. Isn't there an English word for it, yep.

B

um um Actually, Google GitHub actions, there's a new update designs that they saw before uh they were that were different signs, so they're still experiencing aggregated performance.

C

A

Did so we have so many problems with CI at the moment, I feel like we have so many problems, we'll see. I was like either randomly failing or all of a sudden does something weird.

B

A

B

It is because more contributors, more often we release that's. Why I like this bug, we came up with semantic releases like before. We never had it because you had one PR every few days um and now like it's like damn it. It's like uh it's like a machine that machine has no idea.

C

B

But yeah, let's, um let's fix them one by one but CLI it's different they're, just like that's a different Beast um like.

A

Yeah I almost don't dare to enter CLI anymore. It's like.

B

But, but sometimes like um with one PR from Civic, um he has it open for a few months and all all suddenly at some point of time, the the pipeline stopped uh working and you rerun it as much as you want with clear cache whatever and it's failing on installation of on of rimrath package so like. Why.

A

And you and you.

B

See all the other PRS they work perfectly fine, but his PR doesn't.

C

um Because the clear cache button is just fake.

C

Most probably or it's not clear, the casket, you think it's clearing, Maybe I.

A

Don't know yes, what can you do? I.

C

Sometimes have to fill in that feeling with notify as well deployment that you do this. You have uh deploy and clear cache in the play and they usually take the same time and.

B

Then he's like.

C

It's either not you is it the catch at all or it's always uh using the cash I, don't know, but actually.

B

I'm afraid of this button, because once when I did clear, cache and rebuilt, it actually broke the page. It was working only because of the cache so yeah.

C

Iowa was the clear cast is to try to start fresh, but I, don't know which catch this is it's not clear.

A

All right see you guys later, I have.