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

Update Stamen providers to reflect that they are now hosted by Stadia Maps #520

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 23, 2023

Conversation

ianthetechie
Copy link
Contributor

Pretty much what the title says. This change is non-breaking (the current Fastly URLs have been redirecting here for a few weeks already), and reflects that registration will soon be required. I have not touched any of the code structure, so things should keep working for existing users of the library.

@brunob
Copy link
Member

brunob commented Aug 4, 2023

related to #519

Copy link
Member

@brunob brunob left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Really nice PR, thx for that !

@martinfleis
Copy link
Contributor

Shouldn't these be variants of Stadia maps instead? Rather than having them separately as Stamen as it was until now. Strictly speaking, they are becoming just variants of Stadia tiles.

@ianthetechie
Copy link
Contributor Author

@martinfleis technically speaking, yes, it would make sense for these to go under Stadia. Would you prefer to do this as a breaking change and do a 2.0.0 release?

@martinfleis
Copy link
Contributor

This is a breaking change anyway no? Since this PR changes variant names from toner to stamen_toner.

I find the solution of filing these under Stadia better from a long-term perspective but this is a bit specific situation.

What about including them under Stadia but leave around the original Stamen urls until October? As a form of transition period.

@ianthetechie
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah, I struggled with that... Is it a semver breaking change if the public API remains the same, but an external dependency has a cutoff date? That's tricky... I would not suggest leaving the current URLs for the transition period. The old URLs will completely stop working on October 31st, but we will start doing "brownouts" (serving tiles letting you know you have to switch) starting in September.

All that said, I think I see your point about labeling it as a breaking change anyway and moving under Stadia. It will make it more explicit that something is changing.

Re: the current changes being breaking, I think the construction from the public API is the same, no? I thought the mapping to stamen_toner was an internal detail, but I admit I am not that familiar with this codebase :D

L.tileLayer.provider('Stamen.Toner').addTo(map);

@martinfleis
Copy link
Contributor

the current changes being breaking, I think the construction from the public API is the same, no?

I guess you are right, it is not breaking change as is. Sorry!

@ianthetechie
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any further thoughts from @brunob?

@brunob
Copy link
Member

brunob commented Aug 7, 2023

Shouldn't these be variants of Stadia maps instead?

This should be that, but it will force us to bump a v2 since it'll cause "the breaking change".

I would not suggest leaving the current URLs for the transition period

+1

Maybe we can try to add aliases for old Stamen calls to new ones from Stadia in order to avoir the v2, but i think it's simpler to assume the change and directly bump a v2. Any thoughts about this @jieter ?

@ianthetechie
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just went ahead and pushed the "breaking" version (v2 moving everything under Stadia) since it seems like that's the way things will land.

@jieter
Copy link
Contributor

jieter commented Aug 9, 2023

Maybe we can try to add aliases for old Stamen calls to new ones from Stadia in order to avoir the v2, but i think it's simpler to assume the change and directly bump a v2. Any thoughts about this @jieter ?

I'd say immediate v2 will be the lowest maintenance cost, which we should prefer I think.

@brunob
Copy link
Member

brunob commented Aug 9, 2023

I'd say immediate v2 will be the lowest maintenance cost, which we should prefer I think.

So we can merge this one and push a new release :)

@ianthetechie
Copy link
Contributor Author

Cool cool! FWIW I couldn't figure out how to run unit tests locally (but did test that it looks good on the preview page) and it looks like actions have been failing somewhat often recently. I didn't break anything new as far as I can tell ;)

image

@ianthetechie
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey, just a friendly bump on getting this PR merged @brunob. Anything I can do to help speed up a release.

We originally planned to start serving a certain proportion of "warning tiles" letting users on the old endpoints to upgrade starting in early September, but would prefer if the major libraries supported the new URLs first.

@jieter
Copy link
Contributor

jieter commented Aug 23, 2023

I see no reason not to merge, other than the failing CI. But that seems unrelated to this change, I'll fix those after merging.

@jieter jieter merged commit d301b07 into leaflet-extras:master Aug 23, 2023
1 of 2 checks passed
@brunob
Copy link
Member

brunob commented Aug 23, 2023

@jieter before pushing to npm, i think we should complete the changelog 1.13.0...master

@brunob
Copy link
Member

brunob commented Aug 28, 2023

@jieter before pushing to npm, i think we should complete the changelog 1.13.0...master

done #524

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants