Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Version resolution is problematic with pre-release/maintenance versions #480

Closed
isc-bzhang opened this issue May 15, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@isc-bzhang
Copy link
Contributor

While branching HealthConnect 7.2.0-1.r1, whose dependencies are all with -1.r1 pre-release flag, it was noticed that the dependency graph builder does not correctly grab the -1.r1 prerelease version for its dependencies. After some investigation, it turns out to be a bug in semanticVersionExpression.Comparator class, and is addressed in HSIEO-10520.

However, this only fixes the issue for pre-release, and I believe the "+" sign, which was designed to be used for maintenance release, also have this issue; and since maintenance release version do not have a explicitly defined comparator like pre-release version, some different change might needed. It is also one of the reasons why HC started to use "-" for maintenance release since a few years ago.

We have HSIEO-10642 to track the maintenance version fix, but thought it might be better to have a github issue created for this. Ideally, we should use some third party version handler to deal with all IPM versions, so we do not need to work out the different types of versions' behaviors outselves.

@isc-tleavitt
Copy link
Contributor

isc-tleavitt commented May 15, 2024

IMO using different versions with + to distinguish releases with a meaningful order of precedence is bad and goes against the semver spec, and the solution is to actually follow semantic versioning properly (bugfixes are a patch version bump and assumed always safe to pick up).

That's probably oversimplifying things though, and there should probably be a broader conversation about this that happens purely internally.

@isc-tleavitt isc-tleavitt added the question Further information is requested label May 15, 2024
@isc-tleavitt
Copy link
Contributor

isc-tleavitt commented Sep 9, 2024

I believe the needs here have been addressed between #557 and other recent discussions. (Plus some upcoming discussions about internal processes.)

@isc-tleavitt isc-tleavitt closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Sep 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants