-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
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
[WFLY-19588] Proposal for MicroProfile Platform 7.0 #616
Conversation
b22fe33
to
cde38d7
Compare
cde38d7
to
48a3826
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @kabir - thanks for your proposal. I finally had the chance to go through it 🙂
I've dropped some comments and questions, and asked for some changes.
Feel free to let me know what you think.
* https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-19592[WFLY-19592 - MicroProfile Fault Tolerance 4.1] | ||
* https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-19591[WFLY-19591 - MicroProfile OpenAPI 4.0] | ||
* https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-19589[WFLY-19589 - MicroProfile REST Client 4.0] | ||
* https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-19589[WFLY-19589 - MicroProfile Telemetry 2.0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same as above. This doesn't look right, as it is the same tracker as the MP REST Client upgrade. It should be https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-19846 and also https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-19590.
* Where one of the specifications being upgraded needs additional testing beyond what is done by the TCK, it should be pointed out in the analysis of the individual specification upgrade. | ||
|
||
== Community Documentation | ||
* Community documentation for the subsystems in question will be updated to reflect the new versions, and any potential differences in behaviour. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd add that this will be tracked by individual spec upgrade WFLY issues, as you've done in previous sections.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There might be some 'common' documentation bit, that just says that "WildFly is MicroProfile 7.0 compliant runtime".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1, thanks for pointing this out @rhusar
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added a section, and opened a PR with the changes wildfly/wildfly#18322
== Release Note Content | ||
MicroProfile specifications have been updated to the versions that are part of MicroProfile Platform 7.0. (See the table in the link:#overview[Overview] if exact versions are needed) | ||
|
||
MicroProfile OpenTracing has been removed from the MicroProfile 6 platform, in favour of MicroProfile Telemetry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't we know this already? I mean, we removed the integration when we upgraded the specs to 6.1, right? Or am I missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for fixing. Feel free to resolve.
48a3826
to
31a1733
Compare
31a1733
to
89608f0
Compare
[WFLY-19588] Fix header table
[WFLY-19588] More fixes (links, requirements structure, default config changes)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this proposal @kabir - changes LGTM, approving from QA perspective.
@rhusar you previously requested changes, is it possible to change your review to approved or anything outstanding? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM now (@darranl all feedback has been addressed already)
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-19588