[keycloak-dev] Moving to standardized Promises

[Stian Thorgersen]

Great, thanks. Will get some folks that know TypeScript better than me to
take a look at it.

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 20:38, Jon Koops <jonkoops at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>