# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- Bumps version to 2.2.0
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
- 1 - this is just a version bump
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] Version number is correct (`2.2.0`)
- [x] BSL license file has been updated with the new date and version
number
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
Bump versions to 2.1.0
# API and ABI breaking changes
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
CI
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- Bumps version to 2.0.5
# API and ABI breaking changes
None - this is just a version bump
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
# Expected complexity level and risk
1 - just a version bump
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] License file has been properly updated, including the date change
- [x] CI is passing other than the internal check
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- Bumps version to 2.0.4
# API and ABI breaking changes
None - this is just a version bump
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
# Expected complexity level and risk
1 - this is just a version bump
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] License file has been updated with correct version + time
---------
Signed-off-by: John Detter <4099508+jdetter@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- Version upgrade 2.0.3
# API and ABI breaking changes
- None, this is a version bump
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
# Expected complexity level and risk
- 1 - this is a version bump
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] License has been updated
- [x] Version number is correct (2.0.3)
# Description of Changes
Bumping all versions to 2.0.2 for the release.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None.
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
CI
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
Just bumping versions to 2.0.1.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
- [ ] CI passes
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- Version upgrade to 2.0.
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
# Expected complexity level and risk
1 - this is just a version bump
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] License file has been updated
- [x] CI passing
---------
Signed-off-by: John Detter <4099508+jdetter@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
Copied from: https://github.com/clockworklabs/SpacetimeDB/pull/4084
We originally reverted this because it was causing testsuite flakes in
private. Now we have solved the issue that was causing the flakes so
this should be safe to merge.
Version upgrade to `v1.12.0`.
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1 - this is just a version upgrade
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
The testsuite failures are fixed by
https://github.com/clockworklabs/SpacetimeDB/pull/4120
- [x] License has been properly updated including version number and
date
- [x] CI passes
---------
Co-authored-by: John Detter <4099508+jdetter@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: rekhoff <r.ekhoff@clockworklabs.io>
Co-authored-by: clockwork-labs-bot <clockwork-labs-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
This reverts the version bump, since it seems to be causing test
flakiness somehow.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
- [ ] CI passes
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: John Detter <4099508+jdetter@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
Version upgrade to `v1.12.0`.
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1 - this is just a version upgrade
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
The testsuite failures are fixed by
https://github.com/clockworklabs/SpacetimeDB/pull/4120
- [x] License has been properly updated including version number and
date
- [x] CI passes
---------
Co-authored-by: rekhoff <r.ekhoff@clockworklabs.io>
Co-authored-by: clockwork-labs-bot <clockwork-labs-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- Version bump to `v1.11.3` for just the CLI and rust
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] CLI version has been updated
- [x] Version + date in the license file has been updated
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- Version upgrade to `1.11.2`
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
- None, this is just a version bump
# Expected complexity level and risk
1 - no real changes here
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
- NA this is just a version bump, no functionality change here.
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- Bump version numbers to `1.11.1`
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
- [x] Verified that the license has been updated
- [x] `spacetime --version` on this commit is correct
There is also a corresponding private PR.
# Description of Changes
Bumping versions to 1.11.0 in preparation for an upcoming release.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
- [x] Existing CI passes
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
This upgrades the SpacetimeDB version to 1.10.0.
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
This is just a version bump - not tested.
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
Upgrade to version 1.9.0.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None - just a version upgrade.
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] I verified that the license has been updated
- [x] The version number looks correct (1.9.0)
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- This upgrades the versions of all SDKs, the CLI, etc. to 1.8.0
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
1
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] I verified that all versions seem to be updated including the BSL
license update <!-- maybe a test you want to do -->
We have 1 `1.7.0` that didn't get upgraded automatically because it is
part of the module bindings for a template:
```
crates/cli/.templates/parent_parent_crates_bindings-typescript_examples_quickstart-chat/src/module_bindings/index.ts: cliVersion: '1.7.0',
```
A case could possibly be made for bumping the template but it shouldn't
cause any issues as the module bindings directory should just get
regenerated by the user. @cloutiertyler should we be bumping module
bindings for templates when we upgrade versions?
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
Bump versions to 1.7.0 in preparation for the release.
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
- [x] CI passes
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
Bumping versions to 1.6.0 in preparation for upcoming release.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
- [x] Existing CI only
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
Please note, much of the code changed in this PR is generated code.
This change updates the TypeScript SDK to use a new `spacetimedb`
TypeScript library which lives under the `/crates/bindings-typescript`
folder alongside `/crates/bindings-csharp`. Just like with the C#
bindings library, the types for `AlgebraicType` and `RawModuleDef` are
now code generated with a script in `/crates/codegen/examples`.
Pulling this out into a library allows us to use the same types and
serialization code on both the server and the client for TypeScript
modules.
In the process of making this change I also found and fixed several
issues with the TypeScript code generation. Namely an issue with
recursive types and an issue with the `never` type. I also removed any
use of `namespace`s since those are a TypeScript only feature, and we
want to have JavaScript + types so that we can use the generated code
with ESBuild without TSC.
I have also improved the npm/pnpm scripts to be able to generate
TypeScript code for us automatically by running `pnpm generate` for any
place that we have to generate typescript code. Namely:
- Quickstart module bindings
- AlgebraicType/ModuleDef for TypeScript module library
- Client API messages for the TypeScript API
- TestApp module bindings
# API and ABI breaking changes
IMPORTANT! This is an API breaking change for clients, as such it should
be a major version change. However, I am going to see if I can shim in
the old API as best as possible to make it compatible.
Notably, we were previously exporting APIs that end users do not need,
and I don't think it would ever occur to them to use, namely the whole
`AlgebraicValue` API and also the `AlgebraicType` API. In principle, no
one should have a need for these, although it was technically possible
for them to use it.
Indeed, we could potentially even just remove AlgebraicType completely
from the API by directly code generating the serialization code.
Listed below are all of the **BREAKING** changes to the API and their
effect:
- `AlgebraicType` is now a structural union literal type instead of a
class (nominal type), this is a consequence of generating the type with
our code gen. Users did not have a reason to use `AlgebraicType`
directly.
- The `AlgebraicValue` type has been removed entirely. This was
previously a class that was exported from the SDK, but very unlikely to
be used by users.
- The `ProductValue` type has been removed.
- The `ReducerArgsAdapter` and `ValueAdapter` types, which were used
with AlgebraicValues have been removed.
- Generated code has changed incompatibly so users will have to
regenerate code when upgrading to this version. Technically a breaking
change, but pretty easy to fix.
Listed below are the non-breaking API changes:
- I am now exporting generated product types as the default export in
addition to how I was exporting them before
- For generated sum type `T`, I am now exporting a `TVariants` namespace
which has the types of all the variants for `T`. This was previously
exposed on the namespace `T`, but was inaccessible in modules other than
the one it was defined in because I also export a type `T` in addition
to namespace `T` and in the type position `T` was being interpreted as a
type rather than a namespace. It's unclear why TypeScript resolved it as
the `T` namespace within the module in which is was defined previously.
Anyway, since the old types were apparently unobservable to users, I've
replaced them with the types in `TVariants`. (Open to other names for
this namespace).
- I fixed a bug where never types (sum types with no variants) were not
correctly generated.
# Expected complexity level and risk
3. The most complex thing about the PR are the potential impacts to the
API. I am reasonably certain, but not 100% certain that I have accounted
for everything above.
# Testing
- [x] I ran `pnpm test` which runs all the tests in the repo including
an integration test which tests the connection to SpacetimeDB. I also
fixed broken tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
We recently merged several repos together. This PR clarifies the license
terms for several subdirectories, as well as the relationship between
the licenses.
The licenses in our subdirectories have become symbolic links to
licenses in our toplevel `licenses` directory. For any particular
subdirectory's license file in the diff, you can click `... -> View
file` and then click on the text that says "Symbolic Link" on that page.
This will take you to the license file that it links to.
I have also updated the `tools/upgrade-version` script to update the
change date in the new `licenses/BSL.txt` file.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None.
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
None. Only changes to license files.
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
John Detter