update apiVersion from 720 to 730

[nickchomey]

This resolves #85.

version 7.2 / 720 is experimental, for internal testing purposes only. Surely everyone is using v7.3 - which is the only fully-supported version of foundationdb.

Without this change, we cannot pass version 730 to setAPIVersion().

I've also updated the github workflows, readme and changelog to reflect this (and a new 2.0.2 release)

[josephg]

Thanks! IT'd be good to re-generate the options as well, though maybe nothing has changed.

[keijokapp]

To avoid redundant work with releasing, chores etc...

I've been maintaining my fork (keijokapp/node-foundationdb, @arbendium/foundaiondb). Aside from other changes, there's also a significant amount of maintenance work done and maybe it makes sense to incorporate some of that here. For example, I see that Node version was updated but there's a lot of leftover legacy code for versions that have long been unsupported. Also fixed the CI. Ideally, of course, I'd like to get most of the changes made in that fork here. Ideally, I'd like to maintain this library myself.

[nickchomey]

@keijokapp Your work looks extremely valuable! I hope that it can get merged into here somehow.

Though, since there are breaking changes, can I suggest making a brief guide on how to migrate from the current format to the new one?

[keijokapp]

Though, since there are breaking changes, can I suggest making a brief guide on how to migrate from the current format to the new one?

All user-facing changes are in the change log. There isn't anything too drastic.

I added the disclaimer to README due to the following change:

Changed range operation semantics. All range methods (except the "native" or "raw" ones) have a StartsWith variant. The start and end arguments of the original methods are optional and default to subspace start and end (inclusive) respectively.

because, as described in #78, in a worst case, migrating without any consideration/testing/etc may result in a hard-to detect data loss. Basically, make sure that you don't call getRange (&family) and clearRange with second argument being undefined or null before migrating. Use StartsWith variants instead. I initially kept full backwards compatibility with the upstream using one of the methods described in that issue, but due to inactivity here I decided that hard fork and incompatible changes are warranted. If I were able to merge those here, I would likely re-add a safety feature.

All the changes are more or less about subtleties. It's difficult, if not impossible to know which subtleties other user might rely on. I considered marking some changes as backwards-incompatible, but all of them can cause issues if the code is awkward enough. For example, the change about every transaction run getting a completely new transaction object. I wouldn't expect users to rely on the objects' referential equality between the runs but it's not specifically disallowed either. The change was made to avoid bugs, potentially one of which I found in the directory layer.

[josephg]

Ideally, of course, I'd like to get most of the changes made in that fork here. Ideally, I'd like to maintain this library myself.

@keijokapp: Wanna do that?

What I might do is:

• Link to your github project from the README here
• Archive this project
• Give you permission to publish to foundationdb on npm

Then if you publish your changes into a new major version of the npm library, people can migrate when they want to.

How does that sound?

[keijokapp]

@keijokapp: Wanna do that?

Absolutely. Thanks!

Link to your github project from the README here

Wouldn't it be better to transfer the ownership? So that issues etc would come along and redirecting works automatically. Idk, what's the best practice. I would discard (or overwrite) my current fork anyway. I haven't decided whether I want to keep it under my personal GH namespace or "arbendium" (which I also fully control but is less personal). Keeping it under your namespace would also be an option for me I guess.

I'm having unusally busy times right now so I can't make any promises regarding when I can make a release.

My NPM username is also keijokapp.

[nickchomey]

My two cents is that it would be ideal if @keijokapp could get admin permissions/ownership of this repo and the npm library, so that no one has to do anything - they just keep using what they already have. And it would maintain the issues, prs, history/lineage, credit to @josephg etc...