adr(docs): Decision around 2.0.5 sdk compatibility. #2445
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @c-r33d, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request introduces a new Architectural Decision Record (ADR) to formalize the compatibility strategy for SDK version 2.0.5. The ADR outlines how different versions of the SDK and platform should interact, particularly concerning key management and the deprecation of a specific configuration option. This decision aims to ensure smooth transitions and consistent behavior across versions while simplifying SDK configuration.
Highlights
- Architectural Decision Record (ADR) Introduction: A new Architectural Decision Record (ADR) has been added to formally document critical decisions regarding the compatibility of SDK v2.0.5 with various platform versions. This ADR is marked as 'accepted'.
- SDK Compatibility Rules Defined: The ADR explicitly defines key compatibility rules: SDK v2.0.5 should work with platform versions older than v2.0.4, and SDK versions older than v2.0.5 should work with platform versions v2.0.5 or newer.
- Key Management Strategy Update: The decision outlines that a
WithBaseKeyEnabledoption will not be introduced. Instead, the platform version will be derived from a well-known endpoint. Furthermore, it clarifies that after an admin creates their first key-mapping, the SDK will exclusively use these mappings, ignoring any previously created grants. - Consequences and Validation: The ADR details the consequences of these decisions, highlighting benefits like maintaining backwards/forward compatibility and avoiding new TDF options, alongside neutral impacts such as the need to update the well-known endpoint and the SDK's shift to prioritizing key mappings. It also lists validation steps including unit, integration, and manual testing, as well as documentation updates.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Decisions are made, Documented, clear, and true, Future path is known.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces an Architectural Decision Record (ADR) outlining the SDK's backwards and forwards compatibility strategy with platform version 2.0.5. It details the decision outcome, consequences, and validation methods. The ADR covers compatibility requirements, the removal of a specific option, and a change in key usage after the creation of key mappings.
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or FailedBulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or FailedBulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or FailedBulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or FailedBulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Standard Benchmark Metrics Skipped or FailedBulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
NANOTDF Benchmark Results:
|
jakedoublev
left a comment
jakedoublev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
High level makes sense to me
Proposed Changes
1.) Decision point around expected behavior for v2.0.5 of SDK with different platform versions.
Checklist
Testing Instructions