Skip to content

Renaming streaming subscription to "subscribeToTopic"#1626

Open
artur-ciocanu wants to merge 4 commits intodapr:masterfrom
artur-ciocanu:subscribe-to-topic
Open

Renaming streaming subscription to "subscribeToTopic"#1626
artur-ciocanu wants to merge 4 commits intodapr:masterfrom
artur-ciocanu:subscribe-to-topic

Conversation

@artur-ciocanu
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Renaming streaming subscription to "subscribeToTopic". This should align better with other Dapr SDKs and ensure that is more ergonomic.

Issue reference

We strive to have all PR being opened based on an issue, where the problem or feature have been discussed prior to implementation.

Please reference the issue this PR will close: N/A

Checklist

Please make sure you've completed the relevant tasks for this PR, out of the following list:

  • Code compiles correctly
  • Created/updated tests
  • Extended the documentation

@artur-ciocanu artur-ciocanu requested review from a team as code owners January 25, 2026 06:34
@artur-ciocanu
Copy link
Contributor Author

artur-ciocanu commented Jan 25, 2026

@dapr/approvers-java-sdk and @dapr/maintainers-java-sdk could you please take a look. I think this should be the final name for streaming subscription and it aligns with other SDKs nicely.

@alicejgibbons @javier-aliaga @cicoyle could you also please take a look.

Thank you 🙇

Copy link
Contributor

@cicoyle cicoyle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we create an alias for this so we dont break users. This functionality was backported, so I think its best to add an alias and mark the old as deprecated to be removed later.

@artur-ciocanu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cicoyle @salaboy and @javier-aliaga I have added aliases so we keep backward compatibility.

@salaboy
Copy link
Collaborator

salaboy commented Feb 3, 2026

@artur-ciocanu ok.. so there is a codecov gap there.. I promise you, I will fix the reports soon, but basically, you need to keep a couple of tests for the previous signature of the method.
When that is added I am happy to approve and merge.

@salaboy salaboy self-requested a review February 3, 2026 10:44
Copy link
Collaborator

@salaboy salaboy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, it just need the codecov report green

Signed-off-by: Artur Ciocanu <artur.ciocanu@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Artur Ciocanu <artur.ciocanu@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Artur Ciocanu <artur.ciocanu@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Artur Ciocanu <artur.ciocanu@gmail.com>
@artur-ciocanu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@salaboy and @cicoyle could you please approve I have added tests for deprecated methods

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 7, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.25%. Comparing base (60f01d9) to head (4aea0fd).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #1626      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     79.22%   79.25%   +0.02%     
- Complexity     2137     2138       +1     
============================================
  Files           233      233              
  Lines          6437     6439       +2     
  Branches        697      697              
============================================
+ Hits           5100     5103       +3     
+ Misses          986      984       -2     
- Partials        351      352       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants