[keycloak-dev] Moving to standardized Promises

[Jon Koops]

I've incorporated the code with the changes we discussed and it can be
reviewed. See: https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/pull/6318. Still need
to update the documentation I'll get to that hopefully tomorrow, if not the
day after.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:57 PM Jon Koops <jonkoops at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:37, Jon Koops <jonkoops at 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 at 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 at 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?
>>>>>
>>>>