Skip to content

chore(release): 0.11.13 #366

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
leongdl merged 2 commits into from
Sep 16, 2026
Merged

chore(release): 0.11.13 #366

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1ffaeeb
chore(release): 0.11.13
client-software-ci Sep 16, 2026
9eafe01
chore(release): Fill in the 0.11.13 release notes
leongdl Sep 16, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 16 additions & 0 deletions CHANGELOG.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,3 +1,19 @@
## 0.11.13 (2026-09-16)
Comment thread
leongdl marked this conversation as resolved.


### Features
* Expose `FormatString.segment_count` and `FormatString.literal_segments` on `openjd.expr.FormatString` (#365)

### Bug Fixes
* Bump the openjd-rs crates for their latest fixes: openjd-expr 0.8.0, openjd-model 0.8.0, openjd-sessions 0.6.0 (#365) ([`1d0cc51`](https://github.com/OpenJobDescription/openjd-model-for-python/commit/1d0cc512c08f36198d698cb56f371f4ad420fe2f))

@github-actions github-actions Bot Sep 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

All seven items are filed under Bug Fixes, but at least four of them reject input that 0.11.12 accepted — they are behaviour-breaking for existing templates and callers, not fixes a consumer can upgrade into blindly:

  • 'a' in [1, 2] now raises where it returned False (openjd-rs#396)
  • a job name resolving to 129 chars, and a chunks.defaultTaskCount naming an undeclared parameter, are now rejected at decode (openjd-rs#383)
  • a control character in a resolved job name is now rejected at create_job (openjd-rs#397)
  • embedded filenames ., .., or containing a null byte are now rejected at template validation (openjd-rs#359)

The NONCONTIGUOUS rendering change is also observable to anyone parsing that string: [1, 2, 4, 6] goes from "1,2-6:2" to "1,2,4,6" (openjd-rs#398).

The upstream commit message itself flags this — "openjd-model and openjd-sessions have no public signature changes; the two [breaking] changelog entries are behavioural" — so the breakage is known, it just is not surfaced in the section headings here.

.semantic_release/CHANGELOG.md.j2:4 renders a ### BREAKING CHANGES section, and this file already uses it in 10+ prior releases, so the vocabulary exists. Since these notes are hand-written anyway, consider promoting the input-rejecting items under a ### BREAKING CHANGES heading (or adding a one-line "upgrade notes" preamble). "Behavioural, not signature" breakage is exactly the kind that a downstream pinned to openjd-model-for-python ~= 0.11 will discover in CI rather than in the changelog.

* Type-check an `in`/`not in` item against the list's element type, so `'a' in [1, 2]` raises rather than returning False (openjd-rs#396)
* Check resolved-value constraints at template validation, so an over-long interpolated job name or an undeclared parameter in a `chunks` `defaultTaskCount` is rejected at decode (openjd-rs#383)
* Accept a single-valued `allOf` of one literal and one whole-field expression, and re-check the resolved count at job creation (openjd-rs#397)

@github-actions github-actions Bot Sep 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This bullet describes only the permissive half of openjd-rs#397. That upstream change has two halves, and the one omitted here is the one most likely to break an existing caller:

A control character in a resolved job name is rejected at create_job; 0.7.1 produced the job.
— 1d0cc51 commit message

So on 0.11.12, create_job(job_template=<name: "render-{{ Param.Suffix }}">, job_parameter_values={"Suffix": "a\nb"}) returned a job named render-a\nb; on 0.11.13 it raises DecodeValidationError. That is exercised by a whole new test class added in #365 (test/openjd/model_v1/test_create_job.py:1637 TestResolvedJobNameControlCharacters), and its docstring calls out the 0.7.1-vs-0.8.0 difference explicitly.

As written, "re-check the resolved count at job creation" only covers the allOf count re-check, so a reader upgrading gets no signal that a previously-accepted create_job call can now fail. Consider splitting it, e.g.:

* Accept a single-valued `allOf` of one literal and one whole-field expression, and re-check the resolved count at job creation (openjd-rs#397)
* Reject a control character in a resolved job name at job creation, where it was previously accepted (openjd-rs#397)

* Render a NONCONTIGUOUS chunk range as an explicit list to match the v0 reference: `[1, 2, 4, 6]` is `1,2,4,6` (openjd-rs#398)
* Accept `preprocess_job_parameters` output as its own input for a `LIST[PATH]` parameter defaulting to `[]` (openjd-rs#384)
* Reject an embedded filename of `.` or `..`, or one containing a null byte, at template validation (openjd-rs#359)


## 0.11.12 (2026-09-14)


Expand Down
Loading