You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe what should be investigated or refactored
We should create a test that allows us to better guarantee the backwards compatibility with older packages. This would likely take the form of manually making a package from a version of Zarf we want to be backward compatible to (ensuring all package features were used), uploading it to OCI and then creating a simple deployment test of that package for future Zarf PRs.
We are working on ways to be more cross-version compatible and this would give us a lot more assurance that we aren't breaking anything when we make changes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Instead of creating a compat. matrix to ensure no breaking changes, we will be focusing on creating versioning for Zarf schemas to provide more clarity about compatibility.
I agree with @schristoff-du because this sounds like a lot of work to satisfy situations which can easily be avoided. Full(ish) backwards compatibility seems like a lot of time create a "nice to have" feature.
Perhaps I am not understand this correctly? Seems to me you can use an older version of Zarf to work with a package created with an older version of Zarf?
Describe what should be investigated or refactored
We should create a test that allows us to better guarantee the backwards compatibility with older packages. This would likely take the form of manually making a package from a version of Zarf we want to be backward compatible to (ensuring all package features were used), uploading it to OCI and then creating a simple deployment test of that package for future Zarf PRs.
Links to any relevant code
https://github.com/defenseunicorns/zarf/tree/main/src/test/e2e
Additional context
We are working on ways to be more cross-version compatible and this would give us a lot more assurance that we aren't breaking anything when we make changes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: