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
Well, I’m probably not going to add a compatibility layer. I don’t really want to maintain multiple versions of my own code.
I’m also not sure why YARD can’t just use a more recent version of the library? I think a comparability layer could be YARD’s responsibility. They can load their own lib/common_marker.rb which just calls the 1.0 code; meaning, downstream consumers can keep writing CommonMarker even if it loads Commonmarker behind the scenes. Would that work?
@gjtorikian Could you comment on lsegal/yard#1540 where yard owner and PR author were debating the technical issues? What I understand is that yard owner don't want to introduce a breaking change for an optional feature (commonmarker markup support) while it's difficult to support commonmarker 0.x and 1.x (and 2.x) at the same time. If you can give pointers to the PR author on how to support both versions at the same time, this would be awesome.
commonmarker 1.0.0 introduced breakings changes killing yard compatibility (lsegal/yard#1528):
CommonMarker
->Commonmarker
.render_html(<Array<Symbol>)
->.to_html(<Hash>)
The discussion mainly occurred on the PR that tries to fix it on yard side:
lsegal/yard#1540
Could you help to fix the issue, either on yard side or releasing a new version that add a retrocompatibility layer?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: