Skip to content

Conversation

@basz
Copy link
Member

@basz basz commented Apr 3, 2025

test this

@basz
Copy link
Member Author

basz commented Apr 3, 2025

@basz basz requested a review from prolic April 3, 2025 11:17
@basz
Copy link
Member Author

basz commented Apr 3, 2025

@unixslayer what do you think?

@unixslayer
Copy link
Member

@basz seems like it checks for BC Breaks in vendor libraries instead of making sure we are not introducing any. Maybe ask @Ocramius?

@Ocramius
Copy link

Ocramius commented Apr 3, 2025

It checks for BC breaks you are introducing in your library, exposed to others.

Vendor libraries changing can lead to changes in your libraries, which in turn can lead to exposed BC breaks for others, but that's just one possible case

fetch-depth: 0
- name: "Check for BC breaks"
run: |
composer require --dev roave/backward-compatibility-check
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider pinning to an exact version.

Ideally, you would lock with a dedicated composer.lock

@basz
Copy link
Member Author

basz commented Apr 3, 2025

Don't think it does that. I've tested locally. Added a method to an interface and committed. Then ran the check and it blocked.

@unixslayer
Copy link
Member

unixslayer commented Apr 3, 2025

Don't think it does that. I've tested locally. Added a method to an interface and committed. Then ran the check and it blocked.

ok. I didn't commit when testing locally but when I did, it showed me I'm introducing a BC Break. Maybe only pin to an exact version like @Ocramius suggested and we're good to go.

@basz basz merged commit be118a1 into prooph:7.x Apr 7, 2025
11 checks passed
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants