Are there breaking changes in Moment from version 2.1.0 to 2.13.0?
I just inherited a code base that is using the older version and want to know if there will be problems upgrading to 2.13 from 2.1. Unfortunately there are no JavaScript unit tests for our web app.
I can say that in general, moment follows SemVer, so there are no breaking API changes.
However you may find some behavioral changes, as various bugs have been fixed over the years. Some consider it a "breaking change" when they depended on a particular bug being exhibited and later the bug was fixed, or when a function was improved to be more semantically correct.
As an example, the string returned by moment.utc().format() used to include an offset of +00:00, and it now returns Z. This more closely conforms to the ISO8601 and RFC3339 specifications, so the previous implementation was considered a bug, and it has since been resolved. Most people were fine with this change, as either form should be accepted by all modern parsers, but a few folks complained that this broke their code because they were manually parsing the results via string manipulation, and expecting a numeric value for the offset. We don't consider this a breaking change because the API didn't change, and the resulting string was compliant with the spec both before and after the change - it's just more accurate semantically now.
There are a few miscellaneous other changes like this, and they are all referenced in the changelog. If you edit your question to show which features of moment you are using, then I might be able to provide more details.
Related
Original class function creates an SQL query and executes it.
Since there is an syntax error in the query it throws an error. What's the correct way to achieve fixation? Class extension does not work, because CoC executes the complete original function.
originalFunction(..)
{
createSomeSQLQueryWithSyntayErrorInIt();
executeQuery();
}
The class in question is ReqDemPlanMissingForecastFiller. In method insertMissingDatesForecastEntries a direct SQL statement string is generated. The date variable nonFrozenForecastStartDate is added to the string, but is not escaped correctly as it seems.
If the SQL statement is executed, a syntax error occurs. If the statement is fixed, it can be executed e.g. in SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS).
In this specific case, based on your comments, you may be able to sidestep.
Create a new class ReqDemPlanMissingForecastFiller_Fix extending ReqDemPlanMissingForecastFiller then copy/paste the erroneous function and correct the mistake.
Create an extension class and change the newParameters static funcion.
[ExtensionOf(classStr(ReqDemPlanMissingForecastFiller))]
class ReqDemPlanMissingForecastFiller_Extention
{
public static ReqDemPlanMissingForecastFiller newParameters(
ReqDemPlanCreateForecastDataContract _dataContract,
ReqDemPlanAllocationKeyFilterTmp _allocationKeyFilter,
ReqDemPlanTaskLoggerInterface _logger = null)
{
ReqDemPlanMissingForecastFiller filler = next newParameters(_dataContract, _allocationKeyFilter, _logger);
filler = new ReqDemPlanMissingForecastFiller_Fix(); //Throw away previous value
filler.parmDataContract(_dataContract);
filler.parmAttributeManager(_dataContract.attributeManager());
filler.parmAllocationKeyFilter(_allocationKeyFilter);
filler.parmLogger(_logger);
filler.init();
return filler;
}
}
Code above was based on AX 2012 code. Stupid solution to a stupid problem.
It goes almost without saying that you should report the problem to Microsoft.
#Jan B. Kjeldsen's answer describes how the specific case can be solved without involving Microsoft.
Since overlayering is no longer possible, the solution involves copying a fair bit of standard code. This brings its own risks, because future changes by Microsoft for that code are not reflected in the copied code.
Though it cannot always be avoided, other options should be evaluated first:
As #Jan B. Kjeldsen mentioned, errors in the standard code should be reported to Microsoft (see Get support for Finance and Operations apps or Lifecycle Services (LCS)). This enables them to fix the error.
Pro: No further work needed.
Con: Microsoft may decline the fix or take a long time to implement it.
If unlike in this specific case the issue is not a downright error, but a lack of extension options, an extensibility request can be created with Microsoft. They will then add an extension option.
Pro: No further work needed.
Con: Microsoft may decline the extensibility request or take a long time to implement it.
For both errors as well as missing extension options, Microsoft also offers the Community Driven Engineering program (CDE). This enables you to develop changes in the standard code directly via a special Microsoft hosted repository where the standard code is not locked for changes.
Pro: Most flexible and fastest of all options involving Microsoft.
Con: You have to do the work yourself. Microsoft may decline the change. It can still take some time before the change is available in a GA version.
You can also consider a hybrid approach: For a quick solution, copy standard code and customize it as required. But also report an error, create an extensibility request or fix it yourself in the CDE program. When the change is available in standard code, you can then remove the copied code again.
It seems that Xunit no longer supports extending TraitAttributes. They have sealed the class.
There are also some other issues with Autofixture's plugin for AutoData() where we can inject random created data through an attribute. There are a few work around's for this, however I am attempting to evaluate this for a larger product overall. I liked the demo's since they could do small things like SQL, Excel, custom Attributes for category.
It seems there was more functionality before the changes. I have looked at the site and still see some of the features are returning and there isn't much information.
Is there a new set of functionality coming out? Or possibly a change that will allow us to recreate the older functionality in a new way? It seems the SQL and Excel have a work around, however I can't find any information about when the latest version will be compatible with "Autofixture with xUnit.net data theories" Nuget package. I really like what I have seen, though I can say I don't like breaking changes when I look at enterprise solutions. I cringe a little when I think about if I had this in place in an enterprise and I had made a lot of custom attributes, or used Moq and Autofixture to populate and now all my tests were broken. So I guess the other question is, does Xunit seem to change a lot with breaking changes? There is the other option of moving Xunit back a version. Though at some point I would need to know if these things would be fixed or if they were permanently removed, since I wouldn't want to spend time using functionality that is being removed.
Another is AutoFixtureMoqAutoDataAttribute that doesn't load without that side Nuget package. With the side nuget packages not being updated.
I guess the end question may be.. Does anyone know of any plans to get these features to work with the current version of xunit so that I can start implementing and then expect to do mass replaces later? Or are these permanently breaking changes where we shouldn't implement anything that is currently missing.
Thank you in advance.
Short answer
If you want to use xUnit.net 1.x with AutoFixture, use AutoFixture.Xunit.
If you want to use xUnit.net 2.x with AutoFixture, use AutoFixture.Xunit2.
Explanation
xUnit.net 2.0 introduced breaking changes, compared to xUnit.net 1.x (e.g. 1.9.2). For AutoFixture, we wanted to make sure that AutoFixture supports both. There are people who want to upgrade to xUnit.net 2.x as soon as possible, but there are also people who, for various reasons, will need to stay with xUnit.net 1.x for a while longer.
For the people who wanted or needed to stay with xUnit.net 1.x for the time being, we wanted to make sure that they'd still get all the benefits of various bug fixes and new features for the AutoFixture core, so we're maintaining two parallel (but feature complete) Glue Libraries for AutoFixture and xUnit.net.
As an example, we've just released AutoFixture 3.30.3, which addresses a defect in AutoFixture itself. This bug fix thus becomes available for both xUnit.net 1.x and 2.x users.
Thus, when you need to migrate from xUnit.net 1.x to xUnit.net 2.x, you should uninstall AutoFixture.Xunit and instead install AutoFixture.Xunit2. As far as I know, there should be feature parity between the two.
Traits
AutoFixture.Xunit and AutoFixture.Xunit2 don't use the [Trait] attribute, so I don't know exactly what you have in mind regarding this.
AutoMoq
Again, when it comes to AutoFixture.AutoMoq, it doesn't depend on xUnit.net, so I don't understand the question here as well. It sounds like a separate concern, so you may want to consider asking a separate question.
Why does Flyway use version numbers rather than timestamps?
How is that supposed to work with larger and possibly distributed teams?
Do I have to send and e-mail to all team members announcing that I am now reserving version number xy for me?
What happens if two developers both use the same version number?
What if a lower version number is checked into version control (and executed by the build server on the integration database) after another higher number has already been checked in?
I am used to mybatis-migrations that is closely modeled after the migrations in rails (>=2.1) where timestamps are used instead of version numbers.
Right now I think timestamps make a lot more sense: I don't have to worry about version numbers and out of order migrations are easily detected.
Quite a few questions here. I'll do my best to answer them.
Flyway's versioning system is flexible. It doesn't care whether your version is called 1.0, 20120816115123 or 2012.8.16.11.51.23. You are therefore free to use timestamps if you wish.
Reserving a version number can be a simple as adding your name next to a number on a whiteboard, a sheet of paper or a wiki page.
Flyway will detect multiple migrations with the same version and report an error.
Out of order migration support is currently the #1 requested issue and will be included in the upcoming 1.8 release.
I have seen countless forum posts complaining of issues in GWT when handling dates. I am still very unclear as to what is "wrong" with the date handling, what special considerations need to be made, and when/where/why methods like Date.setMinutes(int minutes) should not be used.
Does anybody have feedback?
Way back in the beginning of Java (i.e., Java 1.0), the date/time api largely (solely?) consisted of the Date class. The Java folks were aware that it lacked robustness, so they added the Calendar class in Java 1.1 and tried to change the Date class into a value object by deprecating most of it. Unfortunately, the Calendar class itself wasn't very well thought-out (see here) and we're stuck with what many consider to be a monstrosity.
Bringing us up to today, GWT supports Date because, well... how can you live without dates?, but doesn't support Calendar/GregorianCalendar/TimeZone because it's so ugly and surely there has to be a better answer. Sadly, no one's thought of it in over 3 years as Calendar support was requested way back in January of 2007 and marked as planned by April 2008.
In short, go ahead and use the the deprecated Date methods in your GWT code, if that will work for what you need to do.
EDIT: GWT's CalendarUtil class might also come in handy.
Just found StyleCop, looks like something worth using for my projects. Then I found out you could use it with ReSharper (a tool I've also never used). So I downloaded ReSharper, as well as StyleCop for ReSharper. I'm just a bit confused about it, though:
With just StyleCop installed (no ReSharper), I get yelled at for referring directly to private variables in code-behind. It wants me to instead do this.variable. Alright, fine.
If I use just ReSharper, it tells me to remove all of the 'this' calls I just added. Which one is better?
If I use ReSharper + StyleCop for ReSharper, it now tells me to add 'this' to all private member references (just like StyleCop did all by itself). However, now it also wants me to add 'this' to all of the controls I'm referencing from the .aspx page (i.e., Label.Text = this.variable -> this.Label.Text = this.variable).
I'm so confused. What is the best standard to follow? Or am I just fine doing it the way I am now (Label.Text = variable)?
The key point is consistency. Your particular formatting with regard to this point comes down to personal preference.
Does the extra wordiness provide additional clarity as to which variable you're referencing or does it obscure the meaning by flooding the page with extra text?
This is a judgment call. They do enforce other rules that make sense; however, a large part of what they do is enforce consistency. As #Martin said, feel free to disable rules that don't make sense for your workflow.
Sorry when working on a team it all comes down to understanding the politics; after all, we work to get paid!
If the person that decided your next
pay raise uses StyleCop, then you
should always include the “this.”
likewise if the boss uses ReSharper
you should do what ReSharper says.
There are a lot more important wars to win this, e.g. 10,000 line classes, over sized method
If you are luckly enough to decide what tools (and coding standards) are used yourself, then I would just choose ReSharper and read the “clean code” book.
I think it's up to you which conventions you want to follow (it's a matter of personal preferences). At least in ReSharper, you can edit the rules to no longer show certain warnings/hints.