NET user on the 1.0 bundle would be impacted when they try to upgrade to V4. We would probably implement a check for that so that we can provide a friendly error message (please upgrade to the 2.0 bundle). Such a change would require customers to do significant code rewrites to be able to move to functions V4, which is not desirable.Ī side effect of this will be to reject loading an application that is using the 1.0 extension bundle.
Many of those SDKs have breaking changes and this proposal does not attempt to enforce that customers use those. Note that none of the above versions reference any of the modern Azure SDKs that were released recently. We can modify these to be less restrictive in terms of required patch version if we want to reduce how many customers will have to do an update as part of their upgrade to V4. If an older version of one of the following extensions is present, the host will throw an error specifying the minimum required version and fail to start. The functions host will enforce the proposed minimum versions in the table below. For example, we are still releasing fixes for .Storage 4.x, but the same is not true for 3.x - so why even let a v4 function app load a 3.x storage extension? Spec Sometimes we ask the customer to do this simply because the newer extension has better logging, and that can make a big difference for tracking the problem down.įor functions V4, we could reduce the size of this problem by adding logic that rejects extensions that are no longer supported. As a result, often the first step when engaged in a support case is to have a customer update their extensions to the latest version. Unfortunately, we are not able to guarantee that our customer receive those fixes. We often fix bugs in our extensions, or update our extensions to use newer Azure SDKs that have relevant bug fixes. Read this comment below for instructions on how to resolve.
This issue proposes that functions V4 should require a minimum version for each of the supported functions extensions (storage, eventhubs, servicebus, etc).ĭiscussion for this proposal: #1988 Sent here by an error message?
0 kommentar(er)
