Skip to content

Revise Fluid Framework Compatibility Considerations#27274

Open
CraigMacomber wants to merge 3 commits into
microsoft:mainfrom
CraigMacomber:considerCompat
Open

Revise Fluid Framework Compatibility Considerations#27274
CraigMacomber wants to merge 3 commits into
microsoft:mainfrom
CraigMacomber:considerCompat

Conversation

@CraigMacomber
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

Edit Fluid Framework Compatibility Considerations in an attempt to make it a bit more clear about a few things.

Reviewer Guidance

The review process is outlined on this wiki page.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 11, 2026 17:50
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

Note

Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.

This PR revises the “Fluid Framework Compatibility Considerations” document to clarify how compatibility is framed (build-time vs runtime vs serialized data) and updates the diagrams/terminology accordingly.

Changes:

  • Reframes compatibility into three aspects (Build Time, In Memory, Serialized Data) and maps them to four compatibility dimensions.
  • Renames “API compatibility” to “Package compatibility” and updates supporting explanations/links.
  • Updates Mermaid diagrams to reflect bidirectional interactions and multiple datastore versions.

Comment thread FluidCompatibilityConsiderations.md Outdated
Comment thread FluidCompatibilityConsiderations.md Outdated
Comment thread FluidCompatibilityConsiderations.md Outdated
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented May 11, 2026

Hi! Thank you for opening this PR. Want me to review it?

Based on the diff (73 lines, 1 files), I've queued these reviewers:

  • Correctness — logic errors, race conditions, lifecycle issues
  • Security — vulnerabilities, secret exposure, injection
  • API Compatibility — breaking changes, release tags, type design
  • Performance — algorithmic regressions, memory leaks
  • Testing — coverage gaps, hollow tests

How this works

  • Adjust the reviewer set by ticking/unticking boxes above. Reviewer toggles alone don't trigger anything.

  • Tick Start review below to dispatch the review fleet.

  • After review finishes, tick Start review again to request another run — it auto-resets after each dispatch.

  • This comment updates as new commits land; your reviewer selections are preserved.

  • Start review

@agarwal-navin agarwal-navin requested a review from markfields May 12, 2026 18:40
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🔗 No broken links found! ✅

Your attention to detail is admirable.

linkcheck output


> fluid-framework-docs-site@0.0.0 ci:check-links /home/runner/work/FluidFramework/FluidFramework/docs
> start-server-and-test "npm run serve -- --no-open" 3000 check-links

1: starting server using command "npm run serve -- --no-open"
and when url "[ 'http://127.0.0.1:3000' ]" is responding with HTTP status code 200
running tests using command "npm run check-links"


> fluid-framework-docs-site@0.0.0 serve
> docusaurus serve --no-open

[SUCCESS] Serving "build" directory at: http://localhost:3000/

> fluid-framework-docs-site@0.0.0 check-links
> linkcheck http://localhost:3000 --skip-file skipped-urls.txt

Crawling...

Stats:
  288859 links
    1925 destination URLs
    2175 URLs ignored
       0 warnings
       0 errors


Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants