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.
- 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
> 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
> 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>
>> 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
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
>>> these changes?