RFC: Breaking changes for the greater good about conform

[bitwalker]

Just a note, I'm also planning on adding the ability to import schemas from dependencies (see #43).

[bitwalker]

I've pushed the release candidate of this RFC to the v1 branch. If you are watching, please take a look and give me feedback!

[tverlaan]

Hi,

I haven't used translations yet but I expect to somewhere in the future. To that end I can't really comment on making breaking changes or not. However I do see the benefits of using the second syntax, so 👍 for me.
One thing that I have doubts on is the syntax of the variables. In your example it is not possible to use $some_variable. Have you run into more complex configuration schemes where longer variable names make sense? I can imagine there are situations where you would want that but I'd have yet to come up with one.

That's it for now. Thanks for Conform!

[Greatlemer]

Hi,

After having just tried to get my head around the existing method of specifying complex structures in the schema then discovering this RFC, I have to say the new version is far simpler to implement and I look forward to it being released fully.
In the meantime I would like to try and make use of it with my existing project but when I try to build it with exrm 0.19.9 I get an undefined function: Conform.Schema.read!/1 error (which is understandable as that doesn't exist any more). I tried using the v1 branch of exrm however and in that case it didn't include anything to do with my configuration in the release. Is there any special configuration that's required to use it?

[bitwalker]

@Greatlemer Sorry about the delay, I would use the v1 branch of exrm with conform 1.0.0-rc*. I'll be promoting v1 of exrm very soon, just trimming down the open issues a bit before I do. v1 of exrm is basically 0.19.x with some changes to be compatible with the deprecation of the direct dependency on conform.

[Greatlemer]

@bitwalker, no worries, I had tried that combination before without success. It turns out (as I discovered yesterday) that it was down to some sort of version conflicts as when I'd upgraded to the new github versions the older versions were still lingering in my deps folder. Once I removed them the release contained everything it should.
Good luck with getting to the v1 releases of both. I look forward to seeing them, although the latest versions are good enough to keep me going for now :)

[bitwalker]

@Greatlemer I suspect it was because your mix.lock had the old revisions :). It's caught me a few times too, but the easy way to fix it is just mix do deps.unlock <app>, deps.update <app>. Hopefully I'll have 1.0 out in the next week or so!

[Greatlemer]

I think it was the deps.update step that I messed up on. I definitely unlocked them but then I did a deps.get again. Somehow I ended up with two versions in my deps directory.
Thank you very much for the assistance though.