Release 2.x.x milestone #1269
Replies: 6 comments 2 replies
-
An item that comes to mind is the structure of the exports of the core utilities: Tracer, Logger, Metrics. Currently all core utilities are exported similar to this: export * from './Tracer';
export * from './middleware'; This means that users who don't use Middy middleware, are still importing the code under When using To get around the issue and avoid a breaking change by modifying the exports, in #1225 we have temporarily brought the We should revisit this decision while working on a |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Another ideal feature for v2 would be correlation Id as mentioned in #129 . An upgrade to 2.x.x will allow for breaking changes, which would be the perfect time to explore this story. The story will most likely make a breaking change to the logger. But it will add a lot of value to developers who operate at scale or to systems with a lot of microservices talking to each other, which could add more interest to these packages. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Another item that could be addressed is extending the behavior of the Currently the method allows to format only certain attributes of a log entry: the standard attributes and context-related ones (when present). We have a feature request (#1261) that suggests allowing to format also other attributes of a log (i.e. See this comment/discussion for a proposal of the feature. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Still related to Logger, we should consider revisiting some of the interface/type names to make them more specific and explicit about what they are: i.e. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Related to Metrics, we should review the types, interfaces, and their names exposed by Metrics and make sure they are:
This was discussed as part of #1373 in this comment (point 1). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We have created a new RFC issue to track the progress of the new release: #1714. I'll close this discussion in favor of continuing it under the RFC. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I see a number of great ideas and improvements suggested by our community recently, together with a backlog other improvement points collected over time.
While I am enthusiastic about many of them, my concern is that some are (or might be) breaking changes and that of course wouldn't be ideal to release without a major version upgrade.
If our roadmap and priorities allow it, I'd like us to consider a 2.x.x release soon.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions