this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
22 points (100.0% liked)

Programming

17326 readers
187 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] domi@lemmy.secnd.me 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

I don't really get the purpose of a header like this, who is supposed to check it? It's not like developers casually check the headers returned by an API every week.

Write them a mail if you see deprecated functions being used by a certain API key, probably much more likely to reach somebody that way.

Also, TIL that the IETF deprecated the X- prefix more than 10 years ago. Seems like that one didn't pan out.

[–] NotationalSymmetry@ani.social 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can simply log this response. Then developers know to replace that call in the next version. If you have unit tests that look for this then you can be sure that your next version is not using any deprecated API calls.

[–] domi@lemmy.secnd.me 3 points 3 months ago

We don't have many unit tests that test against live APIs, most use mock APIs for testing.

The only use for this header would be if somebody sees it during development, at which point it would already be in the documentation or if you explicitly add a feature to look if the header is present. Which I don't see happening any time soon since we get mailed about deprecations as well.

load more comments (4 replies)