Eric does raise an interesting question tho’:

If you have an API that cares about ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’ and you later specify 
that ‘d’ is optional and should be an ‘int?’, does that qualify as breakage or 
growth? If clients were sending ‘d’ as a string before but you ignored it, it 
will break those clients. Clients that were not sending ‘d’ will not be 
affected by the change. The old spec – allowing ‘d’ to be ‘any?’ essentially – 
won’t fail on any data that omits ‘d’ or passes it as ‘int?’ so it passes your 
compatibility test.

(we actually ran into this at work because a client app was passing a field we 
didn’t care about and we later decided that was an optional field but couldn’t 
be an empty string and it broke that client)

Sean Corfield -- (970) FOR-SEAN -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood

________________________________
From: clojure@googlegroups.com <clojure@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Seth 
Verrinder <set...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:45:30 AM
To: Clojure
Subject: Re: [core.spec] Stricter map validations?

I took part of the goal to be that specs themselves would remain compatible, so 
an old set of specs wouldn't start failing on data that conforms to a new but 
compatible set of specs. That sort of compatibility isn't possible when you go 
from disallowing something to allowing it.

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 10:15:23 AM UTC-6, Eric Normand wrote:
Hey everybody!

I'm chiming in after seeing this linked to in The Repl (https://therepl.net/).

On Alex's suggestion, I rewatched Spec-ulation last night. The parts about 
negation and evolution are towards the end. I was struck (once again) by how 
clearly he picked apart changes. Relaxing a requirement is growth. And adding 
requirements is breakage. But it left me with a question:

Isn't disallowing a key and then allowing it (as optional) growth (instead of 
breakage)? All of the old clients are still fine, and new clients can use the 
key if they choose. You're relaxing the requirements. Taking the opposite 
approach, I require some keys plus allow anything else. Some clients will 
inevitably send me something with extra keys, which is okay, they pass my 
specs. Later, I add in an optional key with a defined spec. So I'm now 
restricting what used to be completely open. Isn't that breakage? I feel like 
I'm seeing it exactly opposite as Rich Hickey. He says if you disallow things, 
it's forever, because if you need to allow it later, that's breakage. But 
there's not enough explanation for me to understand. It seems like relaxing 
requirements. I feel like I'm missing something. In short: why is it forever?

He does mention is that logic engines don't have negation. Does this hint that 
we will want to be using logic engines to reason over our specs?

Thanks
Eric

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to