Skip to content

remove: deprecated JSPath DSL for jwt-role-claim-key config - #5192

Draft
taimoorzaeem wants to merge 1 commit into
PostgREST:mainfrom
taimoorzaeem:remove/deprecated-jspath-dsl
Draft

remove: deprecated JSPath DSL for jwt-role-claim-key config#5192
taimoorzaeem wants to merge 1 commit into
PostgREST:mainfrom
taimoorzaeem:remove/deprecated-jspath-dsl

Conversation

@taimoorzaeem

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This reverts #5171.

The deprecation is now removed in favor of the new JSONPath syntax and it will take effect in the next major version.

This reverts commit 4834678.

The deprecation is now removed in favor of the new JSONPath syntax and
it will take effect in the next major version.
@taimoorzaeem
taimoorzaeem force-pushed the remove/deprecated-jspath-dsl branch from 169e7fc to f52f5dd Compare August 25, 2026 09:40
@taimoorzaeem taimoorzaeem changed the title remove: deprecated jspath for jwt-role-claim-key config remove: deprecated JSPath DSL for jwt-role-claim-key config Aug 25, 2026
@taimoorzaeem taimoorzaeem added this to the v18 milestone Aug 25, 2026

@steve-chavez steve-chavez left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

See my reasoning on #5171 (comment). I'm not at all driven to break backcompat just for the sake of it, there must be a justification like: it's hard to add a new feature (if demanded) for this code path.

@wolfgangwalther wolfgangwalther left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Assuming the remainder is a straight revert, I only looked at the changelog part. LGTM.

@wolfgangwalther

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm not at all driven to break backcompat just for the sake of it, there must be a justification like: it's hard to add a new feature (if demanded) for this code path.

Wow, wait a minute. The deprecation policy was introduced to allow us to make breaking changes. If you're now arguing that we shouldn't make them, then we have not gained anything. In this case, I am taking back my approval on the policy.

@taimoorzaeem
taimoorzaeem marked this pull request as draft August 31, 2026 07:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants