6:57 a.m.
Thanks for the quick response. I'll see if I can get the changes in today.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:50 PM Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:37, Jon Koops <jonkoops(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I am concerned the pull requests can be merged as-is. However
> we need to make sure to add a 'legacy' promiseType to cover the transition
> period where promiseType will default to 'native' to give users the ability
> to opt-out of the native promises whilst migrating their code.
>
> Depending on what you prefer we can do two things. We either merge the
> pull requests and make a new task to introduce a 'legacy' promiseType. Or I
> can update the pull requests that are open now. Let me know what you think.
>
Added https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11616 - if you can
incorporate that in current PRs that would be great.
>
> Related to this discussion there are some files that seem duplicated as I
> can find the same type definitions for the Keycloak adapter in the new
> theme as almost an exact copy. What should be done with with these files if
> we make changes? (the specific file in question is
>
themes/src/main/resources/theme/keycloak-preview/account/resources/app/keycloak-service/keycloak.d.ts)
>
> It also seems that in the respective classes that use said definition
> that the legacy promises are also still used. We should look into finding a
> way to migrate this code as well. Perhaps including Keycloak as an NPM
> dependency would make some sense here as well.
>
This is there temporarily for the new account console and the team working
on the new account console is already aware that they need to remove this
duplicate.
>
> I don't consider the above observation as part of the migration in
> question, however it should probably be discussed by the team as well.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:54 AM Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Updated https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-9346 with sub-tasks to
>> cover what we agreed and moved your two tasks to sub-tasks of this issue.
>>
>> I think both your PRs can be merged now, with
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11608 covering a clearer
>> message around the deprecation. I can handle that, but need to discuss with
>> the team around how we go about this first.
>>
>> Not sure when we can make this switch, will discuss it with the team on
>> Friday and let you know.
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 13:58, Jon Koops <jonkoops(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Great! I completely agree that the points outlined are the way forward.
>>> Let's focus on getting the deprecation message into the next release
>>> together with the updated documentation. There are pull requests for these
>>> changes and I would greatly appreciate a review of them.
>>>
>>> I'll also modify the existing pull requests to incorporate the idea of
>>> a 'legacy' promise type and refer to it the documentation with some
>>> elaboration that in a future version of Keycloak the default will change to
>>> 'native' over 'legacy'.
>>>
>>> As for the timeline of the changing of the default to 'native' and
>>> eventual removal of 'legacy' what would be the preferred moment to
make
>>> these changes?
>>>
>>