Skip to content

Conversation

@asiffermann
Copy link
Contributor

As mentioned in #277, Linkedin has enforced users to migrate to API version 2.0 by May 1.

The migration FAQ describes the main differences:

  • Usage of the Lite Profile consisting of a member's id, first name, last name, and profile picture, instead of the previous Basic Profile which contained much more informations
  • A dedicated API endpoint to retrieve a member's email
  • OAuth scopes to include to call those endpoints: r_liteprofile and r_emailaddress
  • Changes for the response JSON payload

This pull request implements all those changes. Feel free to ask me any changes you'd like!

@martincostello martincostello added this to the 3.0.0 milestone May 22, 2019
@martincostello
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the contribution @asiffermann - as this includes code breaking-changes, this is probably not going to be released as part of any 2.x release (if we do one) as it would need to be 3.0 for SemVer, and not shipping ASP.NET Core 3.0 support in the 3.0 release would be confusing.

@martincostello
Copy link
Member

Other than my comment regarding localisation, this looks good! 😎

@asiffermann
Copy link
Contributor Author

I was answering to your comment regarding localization, I'd be glad to read your thoughts about it 😉

About the release, I understand it will be difficult for you to release it independently, but it is now a critical issue for this library, as LinkedIn apps are now being forced to use the new API (the v1 endpoint now returns HTTP error code 410). So it should be considered as a bug fix rather than a breaking change enhancement 😉

@martincostello
Copy link
Member

I understand, although in the short-term you could use the version with your fixes (once this is merged) from the MyGet feed from a pre-release version of the package.

Maybe @PinpointTownes has some opinions on how to manage this?

@jandieg
Copy link

jandieg commented May 22, 2019

I understand, although in the short-term you could use the version with your fixes (once this is merged) from the MyGet feed from a pre-release version of the package.

Maybe @PinpointTownes has some opinions on how to manage this?

Yeas please, any simple instructions in how to get this fix? (in the case it won't be released soon)

@martincostello
Copy link
Member

The quickest way to consume this is to download the package from the AppVeyor CI Build and check into source control and configure a local from-disk NuGet feed and reference the prerelease version from there.

For instance I’m using this approach for 3.0 support for the Amazon provider here: martincostello/alexa-london-travel-site#255

If this is merged but retained for a future 3.0 release in September (i.e. we don’t push to NuGet.org as SemVer breaking and want to reserve the 3.0 version number for simplicity), an alternative is that you could consume it from the MyGet feed in the README.

@martincostello
Copy link
Member

martincostello commented May 22, 2019

As an alternative, which would allow this to be a minor release, you could add back all the deleted members and instead mark them as [Obsolete(“blah blah”)] and then I can remove them as part of the 3.0 release.

@martincostello
Copy link
Member

In fact, I think that's the best approach.

Restore the deleted constants, and mark them as something like [Obsolete("This constant is not used in the LinkedIn v2.0 API.")].

This could then be released as a 2.1 version and remain SemVer compatible. Users who've actually consumed the constants whose values have changed in their own code would just need to recompile against a later version to pick up the value changes.

@martincostello
Copy link
Member

Thanks for your work on this @asiffermann 🎈

I'll merge it later on today.

@asiffermann
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks to you for your review! 😉

@martincostello martincostello merged commit 06b1e26 into aspnet-contrib:dev May 23, 2019
@martincostello martincostello removed this from the 3.0.0 milestone May 23, 2019
@martincostello martincostello added this to the 2.1.0 milestone May 23, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants