Skip to content

docs(changelog): backfill omitted 0.8.1 and 0.9.0 entries - #104

Merged
zfarrell merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
changelog-backfill-0.8.1-0.9.0
Jul 30, 2026
Merged

docs(changelog): backfill omitted 0.8.1 and 0.9.0 entries#104
zfarrell merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
changelog-backfill-0.8.1-0.9.0

Conversation

@zfarrell

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Two shipped releases carried breaking changes recorded only as raw commit subjects, so the changelog never told callers they were affected. Backfills the missing entries; no code changes.

0.9.0 — regen #90 added a required default_schema field to DatabaseSummary, DatabaseDetailResponse, and CreateDatabaseResponse, which changed all three new() signatures. It also added optional default_schema on CreateDatabaseRequest and optional key on three table decls. The only entry was chore(api): exclude datasets from public OpenAPI spec + docs cleanup.

0.8.1LoadManagedTableRequest::new(mode, upload_id) became new(mode). This went out in a patch release, which Cargo treats as compatible with 0.8.0 for a 0.x crate, so it could surface on cargo update. The entry was feat(tables): support loading from query results.

Every claim was verified against the v0.8.1 / v0.9.0 tags rather than the PR diffs. Existing raw-subject bullets are left in place so the entries stay traceable to their regens.

@zfarrell
zfarrell requested a review from a team as a code owner July 30, 2026 02:25
@zfarrell
zfarrell requested review from anoop-narang and removed request for a team July 30, 2026 02:25
Comment thread CHANGELOG.md

### Changed

- **Breaking:** `LoadManagedTableRequest` can now load from a persisted query

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

super nit: (not blocking) The published GitHub Release notes for v0.8.1 and v0.9.0 won't pick these up. .github/workflows/release.yml checks out ref: ${{ env.RELEASE_TAG }} (line 37) and extracts notes from the CHANGELOG at that tag, so a workflow_dispatch re-run for v0.8.1 would re-render the old, pre-backfill section — and make_latest: true (line 78) would additionally re-point "latest" at an old tag. Since the point of the backfill is that affected callers were never told, it's worth editing those two release bodies by hand after merge.

@claude claude Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Verified every claim against the current source: DatabaseSummary::new(default_catalog, default_schema, id), DatabaseDetailResponse::new(attachments, default_catalog, default_connection_id, default_schema, id), CreateDatabaseResponse::new(default_catalog, default_connection_id, default_schema, id), the optional default_schema on CreateDatabaseRequest, the optional key on AddManagedTableDecl / AddManagedTableRequest / DatabaseDefaultTableDecl, and LoadManagedTableRequest::new(mode) with optional upload_id / result_id. The 0.9.0 attribution matches PR #90's file list (merged 2026-07-15, same day as the tag). Semantics in the new entries match the generated doc comments.

@zfarrell

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Confirmed, and worth sharpening: the hazard isn't only stale notes. make_latest: true (release.yml:78) is unconditional, so a workflow_dispatch re-run for v0.8.1 or v0.9.0 would re-point "latest" from v0.10.0 to that old tag. So the fix must be a manual gh release edit on the two bodies, not a workflow re-run.

Both published bodies currently carry only the raw subjects, so they need the same treatment as the CHANGELOG sections here. Doing that after this merges.

Separately, the unconditional make_latest: true looks like a latent bug worth fixing on its own — any re-run of any old tag silently moves "latest" backwards.

@zfarrell
zfarrell merged commit c362adc into main Jul 30, 2026
4 checks passed
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.

1 participant