remoteStorage.js 0.9.0 released

With version 0.9.0 of remoteStorage.js, your app will be compatible with the new spec, which we published recently.

There are 2 breaking changes, which may or may not affect your app:

Apart from adding support for the new spec, basic i18n support was added, the codebase was cleaned up from top to bottom, a setSyncInterval method was added, and a lot of bugs were fixed:

  • Fix multiple overlapping requests on first pageload
  • Fix requests going to non-ready cache before initial sync finished
  • Better error messages in widget
  • Label change events from initial sync as ‘local’ if they come from local
  • Add in-memory storage for when neither IndexedDB nor localStorage are available
  • Move the example server and example apps to gh:remotestorage/starter-kit
  • Fix minor issues in the experimental GoogleDrive backend (in dark launch)

Thanks to @raucao, @galfert, @ggrin, @michielbdejong, @clochix, @silverbucket, @gregkare, and @rakyll whose pull requests made it into this release. Get it here:

And of course, you’re all very welcome to submit your pull requests for release 0.9.1, which should be due in about a month. See our contribution guidelines to find out how you can get your changes in quickly.

1 Like

Awesome! congrats everyone!

We need to get all known apps upgraded as soon as possible. Providers cannot switch to the new spec until that’s done.

actually i would advise all apps that rely on anonymous mode, for instance litewrite, to wait for 0.9.1. which may be a good reason to try to hurry up and release that in the next couple of weeks or so

1 Like

What would be the reasons to wait with upgrading (from 0.8 to 0.9 I suppose)?

Anonymous mode is broken, because there was no integration test for it yet, and we overlooked testing it manually. There are PRs for both tests and fixes for that on GitHub already, so you might be able to merge the branches and have it working again. But if you rely on users storing data without connecting their storage, then you should probably wait for the soon-to-be-released 0.9.1.

our reviewer process is a bit stranded at the moment unfortunately, since no reviewers seem to be available this week. we don’t know how long this is going to take, but hopefully @ggrin comes back soon and we can publish 0.9.1 and this will all be resolved within a couple of weeks.

fwiw, i did this merge of these 5 unreviewed branches into my private dev branch, that’s what i’m using until then, personally.