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

Upgrade to Kazoo 2.6.0 breaks backward compatibility with KazooRetry #544

Closed
ceache opened this issue Dec 7, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed
Labels

Comments

@ceache
Copy link
Contributor

ceache commented Dec 7, 2018

The removal of max_jitter from KazooRetry parameters in 60366d2 break upgrade from previous versions.

If this is expected, I think it should be documented.
Otherwise a simple deprecation warning and keeping the argument in an inactive form could also be done.

@StephenSorriaux
Copy link
Member

Hi,

You're right we should have kept the argument while displaying a deprecation warning message... If you have some times to fix this, please feel free to submit a PR.

@jeffwidman
Copy link
Member

jeffwidman commented Dec 12, 2018

@StephenSorriaux did you see my comment in #521 (comment)?

I guess a warning is fine, but @ceache given that you only should have hit this if upgrading from 1.2, I'm guessing there's a whole slew of other backwards incompatible changes you should have hit...

(Sorry for swinging by late, I have been buried and not on top of my notifications)

@StephenSorriaux
Copy link
Member

StephenSorriaux commented Dec 12, 2018

@jeffwidman No, I did not... I might be missing something but isn't the deprecation you are refering to in #521 about the KazooClient object?

@ceache
Copy link
Contributor Author

ceache commented Dec 13, 2018

We did not either.

We hit this because we were creating KazooRetry objects directly, not through the KazooClient constructor, which is not displaying any deprecation warnings.

Shouldn't the this machinery be moved to kazoo.retry instead and consolidated?

@StephenSorriaux
Copy link
Member

I'm closing this issue since #545 fixes it.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants