-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 632
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
Roadmap (0.4 and beyond) #1147
Comments
I have to say I really like this project, and this issue is well structured, I like the delineation of breaking changes. I just want to introduce a sideways perspective -- "Reasons to walk away from 0.3" So here is a consumer's story When I follow the template step and produce a new project from leptos version "0.3" and check the project into a github repository employing dependabot I get security warnings Ouroboros is Unsound Here is my analysis or the situation when I ask cargo why ouroboros I see "leptos_reative" is the only thing pulling in ouroboros Also this issue was resolved a few says ago with this PR Replace ouroboros with self_cell I appreciate managing the pace of releases is not straight forward To argue against my point -- Some consumers will be put off by the frequent publication of releases with breaking changes, seeing that incorrectly as sign of instability. So I am just adding a single factor into a complex decision At some point we must get off 0.3 output of cargo why
|
Thanks! And thank you for all your contributions keeping things clean.
To me, the solution here seems pretty straightforward -- I am just going to create a branch that rewinds to the commit that released v0.3.0, apply the single commit that replaced
My perspective on this broader question is pretty straightforward: there are some breaking changes that are unforeseen, and some that are planned. For example, implementing I'm not bothered at all by the perception of instability due to version numbers; but I do think it's useful to group breaking changes together in releases so that people can sit down and migrate all at once. Given the fairly rapid rate of releases (0.1 was only in late December/January, after all!) I'm pretty comfortable leaving some new features sitting on main for a while to avoid releasing 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6 in June, July, and August, and requiring a slow trickle of rewrites. Of course many users will simply track main and gradually rewrite anyway, and that's great! For security things like the |
I saw that some of the examples still doesn't have the end-to-end testing, can I write e2e test for them? |
That would be really, really great. |
I am adding e2e tests for the |
this would be very cool. +1 for anything along this theme, especially isolated islands. |
@dezren39 This is very much a WIP demo but you can see the fruits of #1422 at https://leptos-hackernews-islands.fly.dev/ (This does not work on Safari or iOS at the moment; I didn't realize Safari doesn't have |
Some HTMX-like features would be very cool tbh |
Which HTMX-like features are you looking for, how have you tried to use Leptos to achieve the same things, and what's gone wrong? |
(This supersedes the roadmap in #501.)
Roadmap
Goals for
0.4.0
extract
function (feat: add Axumextract()
function #1093)<For/>
algorithm (<For/> ignores the order of items #533, For algo v2 #1146)::register()
on server functions (Remove the register function from server_fn #613, feat: register server functions automatically #1154)anyhow
in<ErrorBoundary/>
and friends (feat: add ananyhow
-likeResult
type for easier error handling #1228)nightly
is an opt-in feature andstable
is default (change: rearrange features #1007, change: migrate tonightly
andcsr
features rather thanstable
anddefault-features = false
#1227)Goals for
0.5.0
Scope
andcx
everywhere (Fixing scope handling on dynamic children #802, change: shift fromScope
-based ownership to reactive ownership #918)bind:
syntax for typed children on<For/>
and possibly other control-flow components, when useful (feat: variable bindings on components and slots #1140)Non-breaking improvements
Goals for Future
Send/Sync
reactive system to improve ergonomics (and possibly performance) of Axum integration (Make reactive system Send/Sync #832)Ongoing work with no breaking changes
wasm-bindgen-test
testing for examples and run them usingcargo-make
#210). There has been much work by @agilarity on improving CI on the examples, including testing.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: