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

API does not match Release notes for 2.6 #140

Closed
j-bm opened this issue Jan 25, 2025 · 4 comments
Closed

API does not match Release notes for 2.6 #140

j-bm opened this issue Jan 25, 2025 · 4 comments

Comments

@j-bm
Copy link

j-bm commented Jan 25, 2025

Describe the bug
Release notes for 2.6 describe a new set of routines in CamelCase but the implementation is snake_case.

See #105 for code and PR text which conflicts.

See #126 for removal of now-deprecated methods from 2.6.x version in 3.0 version.

To Reproduce

>>> from passageidentity import Passage
>>> APP_ID='....elided...'
>>> API_LOGIN='...elided...'
>>> psg = Passage(APP_ID, API_LOGIN)
>>> type(psg.user.get_by_identifier)
<class 'method'>
>>> type(psg.user.getByIdentifier)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'User' object has no attribute 'getByIdentifier'. Did you mean: 'get_by_identifier'?

Expected behavior

Expected different spelling according to description in #105.

Passage SDK Versions

  • passage-identity 3.0.0

Third-Party SDK Versions

  • python 3.11.9
@ctran88
Copy link
Contributor

ctran88 commented Jan 25, 2025

Hi @j-bm the implementation in snake case is the intended signature. The #105 PR description was inaccurate (copy/paste error from another language).

I'm sorry about the confusion. Is that causing any issues for you?

@j-bm
Copy link
Author

j-bm commented Jan 25, 2025

I am looking at updating from a 2.5 to 3.0 version and trying to understand the changes, so just naturally I read the release notes from 2.5 to 2.6 to 3.0.

It's not a problem for me; I need to read the actual docs which correctly show the snake_case signature functions. And do a manual "before" and "after" comparison.

A revised table in the 3.0 release notes would have avoided any confusion.

@ctran88
Copy link
Contributor

ctran88 commented Jan 25, 2025

Noted, thank you for bringing it up. We are preparing API docs on our website and a migration guide from v2 to v3, to be published next week.

I will also make sure to amend the release notes here as well to avoid any future confusion.

@ctran88
Copy link
Contributor

ctran88 commented Feb 3, 2025

I've updated the table in #105

We have also just published our docs for this latest version with an upgrade guide.

@ctran88 ctran88 closed this as completed Feb 3, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants