Wasp Version Policy Discussion For Example Apps And Waspc.cabal Implementation

Hey everyone! Let's dive into a crucial discussion about our Wasp version policy, specifically concerning our example apps and the waspc.cabal file. This is super important for maintaining consistency and preventing those pesky versioning issues we've encountered in the past. We'll explore the challenges, discuss potential solutions, and nail down a strategy that works for us. This discussion stems from issues encountered during the 0.18.0 release, highlighting the need for a clear and consistent approach to version management across our projects. The goal is to define a policy that minimizes the risk of version conflicts and ensures our example apps remain functional and up-to-date.

The Problem: Versioning Issues and the Limbo of Broken Examples

So, here's the deal. In the past, we've bumped the version in waspc.cabal whenever we implemented a feature that required it. However, we didn't do this for the 0.18.0 release, and things got a little messy. To understand the current challenge, let's delve deeper into the specific issues encountered during the 0.18.0 release. This will help us grasp the severity of the problem and the importance of establishing a robust versioning policy. Without a clear strategy, we risk repeating these issues in future releases, leading to wasted time, broken examples, and frustrated users. A consistent approach will not only streamline the release process but also improve the overall user experience by ensuring that examples are always compatible with the latest Wasp version.

The 0.18.0 Release Debacle

During the 0.18.0 release, a series of versioning-related issues surfaced, causing significant disruptions and highlighting the need for a more structured approach. These issues underscore the importance of a well-defined versioning policy and its consistent application across all Wasp projects, including example apps and core libraries. The experience serves as a valuable lesson, emphasizing the potential pitfalls of neglecting version synchronization and the benefits of proactive version management. By analyzing these problems, we can identify key areas for improvement and develop strategies to prevent similar issues in future releases.

The waspc.cabal Discrepancy

Firstly, the version in waspc.cabal was stuck at 0.17.1 until the release process began. This might seem like a minor detail, but it's a symptom of a larger issue: inconsistent version management. The waspc.cabal file serves as a central declaration of the Wasp version, and any discrepancy here can lead to confusion and compatibility problems. It's crucial that this file accurately reflects the current version of Wasp to ensure smooth integration and avoid unexpected behavior. Failing to update waspc.cabal promptly can lead to a cascade of issues, as other components and dependencies may rely on this information for proper functioning. This highlights the need for a clear protocol for updating waspc.cabal during the development and release cycle. A simple checklist or automated process could help prevent such oversights in the future.

Example Apps in Version Limbo

When the version was updated to 0.18.0, all our example apps broke! This was because their main.wasp files specified ^0.17.0 as the desired version. Now, these apps were partially updated and wouldn't work with Wasp 0.17.0, but they also couldn't work with 0.18.0 due to the version mismatch. They were effectively in version limbo. Think of it like having a car with parts from two different models – it's not going to run smoothly, if at all! This situation highlights the importance of keeping example apps in sync with the core Wasp version. If example apps are not properly updated, they can become misleading and even detrimental to users who rely on them for guidance. Regular testing and migration of example apps are essential to ensure their compatibility with the latest Wasp features and bug fixes. This also underscores the need for a clear strategy for migrating example apps whenever the Wasp version is bumped. A well-defined migration process can help minimize the risk of introducing inconsistencies and ensure that examples remain functional and representative of the current Wasp capabilities.

Mage's Versioning Woes

Mage also ended up in a similar version limbo. We had migrated Tailwind but not Vite and the Wasp version. This is like updating the tires on your car but leaving the old engine – you've made some progress, but the car still isn't running at its best. This situation illustrates the importance of holistic versioning. When we update a part of our system, we need to ensure that all related components are also updated to maintain compatibility and functionality. In this case, the partial migration of Tailwind without updating Vite and the Wasp version created a versioning gap, leading to potential issues and inconsistencies. This highlights the need for a comprehensive migration strategy that considers all dependencies and ensures they are updated in a coordinated manner. A checklist or dependency graph can be helpful in identifying related components and ensuring they are updated together. This approach will minimize the risk of version conflicts and ensure a smooth transition to the new version.

The Core Issue: Forgetting to Migrate

At the heart of these problems lies a simple yet critical issue: it's easy to forget to migrate our example apps and related components when we bump the Wasp version. We're all human, and with so much going on, these things can slip our minds. However, the consequences can be significant, as we've seen. Therefore, we need to put in place a system that makes it harder to forget and easier to keep everything in sync. This might involve automation, clearer checklists, or a more structured release process. The key is to make version management an integral part of our workflow, rather than an afterthought. By proactively addressing versioning concerns, we can save time and effort in the long run and ensure that our projects remain stable and consistent.

Options on the Table: Sticking with the Old or Embracing Diligence

So, what do we do about this? We've got a couple of options to consider, each with its own set of pros and cons. Let's break them down and see what makes the most sense for us. This decision is crucial for streamlining our development process and ensuring the stability and consistency of our Wasp projects. By carefully weighing the pros and cons of each approach, we can make an informed decision that aligns with our goals and resources.

Option 1: Sticking with the Old System

One option is to stick with our old system, where we bump the version in waspc.cabal whenever a feature requires it. However, as @cprecioso pointed out, this is just one more sometimes-necessary thing we can easily forget. And when we forget, we end up with broken examples and a lot of headaches. The main advantage of this approach is its familiarity. We've been doing it this way for a while, so we're comfortable with the process. However, the significant drawback is the risk of human error. The complexity of our projects and the fast pace of development make it easy to overlook the need to update waspc.cabal, leading to inconsistencies and potential compatibility issues. The potential for forgotten updates and the subsequent version conflicts make this option less desirable in the long run. A more robust and automated system is needed to ensure consistency and prevent these issues.

Option 2: The New System with Diligent Migration

Another option is sticking to the new system but diligently migrating the apps. This means making sure we update all example apps and related components whenever we bump the Wasp version. While this sounds good in theory, it's also easy to forget, as @sodic pointed out. Plus, @sodic doesn't like that Wasp versions in our example apps are incorrect during this time. The appeal of this approach lies in its potential for accuracy and consistency. If we can successfully migrate our apps every time the Wasp version is updated, we can ensure that our examples always reflect the latest capabilities and bug fixes. However, the challenge lies in the execution. Diligent migration requires strict adherence to a well-defined process, which can be demanding and time-consuming. The risk of oversight remains a concern, as even a single forgotten migration can lead to version conflicts and broken examples. Furthermore, the period during which the apps are being migrated can create a temporary state of inconsistency, which, as @sodic points out, is not ideal. To make this option viable, we need to develop a robust migration process that minimizes the risk of errors and reduces the period of inconsistency.

Resources and Next Steps

@cprecioso, please share your ideas for resources that can help us with this. We need to brainstorm and come up with a plan that works for our team and our workflow. This is a collaborative effort, and everyone's input is valuable. By pooling our knowledge and experiences, we can develop a comprehensive strategy that addresses the challenges we've faced and sets us up for future success. This discussion is not just about choosing a versioning policy; it's about building a culture of version management within our team. By fostering open communication and shared responsibility, we can create a system that is both effective and sustainable. The resources we identify should not only help us implement our chosen policy but also support ongoing version management efforts. This might include tools for automating version updates, checklists for ensuring consistency, or guidelines for migrating example apps. The key is to create a system that empowers our team to manage versions effectively and confidently.

I think some of the resources that could be created are:

1. Checklists: Creating detailed checklists for version updates could be a great way to avoid forgetting things. These checklists can outline all the necessary steps for bumping the Wasp version, including updating waspc.cabal, migrating example apps, and verifying compatibility. Checklists provide a structured approach to version management, ensuring that no critical steps are overlooked. They can be customized to fit specific project requirements and can be easily updated as our processes evolve. The checklists should be readily accessible to all team members and integrated into our standard workflow. This will ensure that everyone follows the same procedures and that version updates are handled consistently.

2. Automation: Automating parts of the version bumping process can reduce the risk of human error and save time. This could involve scripting the updates to waspc.cabal or creating automated tests to verify the compatibility of example apps with the new Wasp version. Automation can significantly streamline the version management process, freeing up developers to focus on other tasks. By automating repetitive tasks, we can reduce the potential for errors and ensure that version updates are handled efficiently. The automated tests can also provide early feedback on compatibility issues, allowing us to address them proactively. This approach not only saves time but also improves the overall quality and reliability of our Wasp projects.

3. Documentation: Clear documentation on our versioning policy and procedures is essential. This documentation should outline our approach to versioning, the steps involved in bumping the Wasp version, and best practices for migrating example apps. The documentation should be comprehensive, easy to understand, and readily accessible to all team members. It should also be regularly updated to reflect any changes in our versioning policy or procedures. Clear documentation serves as a central reference point for all version management activities, ensuring that everyone is on the same page and follows the same guidelines. This reduces the risk of inconsistencies and promotes a shared understanding of our versioning practices.

4. Version Bumping Tools: Tools that show us the current version, the new version and allow us to create a migration plan would be incredibly helpful. Think of it like a GPS for version updates, guiding us through the process and highlighting any potential roadblocks. These tools could automate the process of identifying dependencies that need to be updated and generating a migration plan that outlines the steps required. By visualizing the version update process, we can better understand the scope of the changes and the potential impact on our projects. This proactive approach can help us minimize disruptions and ensure a smooth transition to the new version. The tools should also provide features for tracking progress, assigning tasks, and communicating updates to the team.

Let's keep this discussion going and nail down a version policy that works for us! What are your thoughts, guys? What other ideas do you have?