[8.x] Update changelog for v6.18.27 with upgrade info around cookies #36489
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
After this this change any existing cookies will be invalid (which may have implications for some apps)
Collaborator
|
Please send this to the 6.x branch. |
GrahamCampbell
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
@GrahamCampbell Opened a new PR against 6.x: #36489 Closing this one. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Anyone upgrading to >= v6.18.27 will have all their cookies invalidated.
This seems like an important point to highlight that I didn't see mentioned anywhere. I only found it after basically doing a binary search through upgrades to find out which version borked our cookies.
For some apps this means that all their users will be logged out at once - which could have a bunch of implications (not to mention an annoyance for the users)
I may have just completely missed the memo on this - but there was no info on the PR (#33662) and the discussion is currently locked.