Skip to content
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

[serverless-python-requirements] Make plugin compatible with version 6.0.0 #74

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 6, 2023

Conversation

whisller
Copy link
Collaborator

@whisller whisller commented Jan 5, 2023

With version 6.0.0 of serverless-python-requirements they switched to use official AWS docker images. More info can be found in serverless/serverless-python-requirements#724

So we don’t need lambci/lambda anymore.

With this change everyone who is using serverless-python-requirements plugin and will update serverless-builder, would have to upgrade serverless-python-requirements itself.

I was considering two less breaking change approach like:

  1. Introduce new plugin class
class PythonRequirements600 {

}
  1. Modification of PythonRequirements.__init__ and add version parameter

But to be honest I don’t think it’s worth to maintain this backward compatibility.

…`6.0.0`

With version `6.0.0` of `serverless-python-requirements` they switched to use official AWS docker images.
More info can be found in serverless/serverless-python-requirements#724

So we don’t need `lambci/lambda` anymore.

With this change everyone who is using `serverless-python-requirements` plugin and will update `serverless-builder`, would have to upgrade `serverless-python-requirements` itself.

I was considering two less breaking change approach like:

1. Introduce new plugin class
```
class PythonRequirements600 {

}
```

2. Modification of `PythonRequirements.__init__` and add `version` parameter

But to be honest I don’t think it’s worth to maintain this backward compatibility.
@whisller whisller requested a review from a team as a code owner January 5, 2023 18:45
Copy link
Contributor

@matepager matepager left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree that the backwards compatibility is unnecessary and we should just move away from the custom docker image.

@dxd1
Copy link
Contributor

dxd1 commented Jan 6, 2023

+1 for moving ahead

@whisller whisller merged commit 02b868d into master Jan 6, 2023
@whisller whisller deleted the feature/upgrade-python-requirements-plugin branch January 6, 2023 15:51
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