Undoc'd change in XML object return
Under the invoices object, there are two key
objects: transactions and charges.
Up until your latest release, the charges object
was a child object under transactions. Now they are on
the same level, siblings under invoices.
Was this a planned change? I didn't see anything about it in the changelog.
Discussions are closed to public comments.
If you need help with Cheddar please
start a new discussion.
Keyboard shortcuts
Generic
| ? | Show this help |
|---|---|
| ESC | Blurs the current field |
Comment Form
| r | Focus the comment reply box |
|---|---|
| ^ + ↩ | Submit the comment |
You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac
Support Staff 1 Posted by Marc Guyer on 29 Oct, 2009 07:56 PM
Two serious oversights here, unfortunately. One, charges never should have been a child of transaction. It should have always been a child of invoice. This was only recently discovered. Two, this change was not documented and obviously breaks backward compatibility.
If necessary, for the time being, we can put the charges node back where it was and repeat it in the correct hierarchy while you change your code. Just let me know.
Rest assured, we'll make every effort to never break backward compatibility again and if it is necessary, it will be documented and you will be informed in advance.
2 Posted by Frank Koehl on 29 Oct, 2009 08:10 PM
I understand, these things happen. No need to revert to the old model -- I'm messing with my code as we speak (hence all the questions) -- however documentation on changes like this are crucial. The only reason I saw it was because I was working on my parsing code, and it was looking for the old nesting.
Thanks, Marc.
Support Staff 3 Posted by Marc Guyer on 29 Oct, 2009 08:19 PM
Glad you see it that way. The product is a bit young and there aren't many 'live' customers right now. The dev team must have been hoping that noone would notice this change. How embarrassing.
Marc Guyer closed this discussion on 29 Oct, 2009 08:19 PM.
Frank Koehl re-opened this discussion on 29 Oct, 2009 08:32 PM
4 Posted by Frank Koehl on 29 Oct, 2009 08:32 PM
Long time coder, so I think I get the situation perfectly. But since this is a "coder-to-coder" app, they really can't afford to make such assumptions once it goes beyond their doors. Obviously I don't think it's something I need to be concerned about going forward.
Marc Guyer closed this discussion on 29 Oct, 2009 08:43 PM.