FHIR Chat · docs / PR #178 #154: Initial draft of hook versioning sup...

Stream: cds hooks/committers

Topic: docs / PR #178 #154: Initial draft of hook versioning sup...

Github Notifications (Mar 15 2018 at 21:37):

brynrhodes opened PR #178
from issue/154-hook-versioning to master

Github Notifications (Mar 15 2018 at 21:37):

brynrhodes review_requested PR #178

Github Notifications (Mar 15 2018 at 21:37):

brynrhodes review_requested PR #178

Github Notifications (Mar 15 2018 at 21:37):

brynrhodes review_requested PR #178

Github Notifications (Mar 21 2018 at 15:06):

kpshek edited PR #178
from issue/154-hook-versioning to master

This addresses #154

Github Notifications (Mar 21 2018 at 15:19):

brynrhodes synchronized PR #178

Github Notifications (Mar 21 2018 at 15:32):

isaacvetter commented on PR #178

Hey Bryn,

Overall, looks good! A few potential optimizations:
1) +To help ensure the stability of CDS Hooks implementations, once a hook has been defined (i.e. published with a particular name so that it is available for implementation), it can only be changed in ways that will not break existing implementations. This means that fields can be added and restrictions relaxed, but fields cannot be changed, and restrictions cannot be tightened.

1a) "published with a particular name so that it is available" -- is this the same as an active status? If so, shouldn't we say that?

1b) "changed in ways that will not break existing " -- commonly referred to as "breaking changes"

2)
+Note that this means that the name of the hook carries major version semantics. That is not to say that the name must include the major version, that choice is left as a choice by users of the specification.

What would you think about adding a phrase or sentence, such as: "clean hook names increase usability. Optimally, an active hook name accurately defines the meaning and workflow of the hook in actual words".