Skip to content

Update to prisma-next@0.17.0 (CI shadow of #749) - #879

Open
coderdan wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
wmadden/prisma-next-0.17.0
Open

Update to prisma-next@0.17.0 (CI shadow of #749)#879
coderdan wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
wmadden/prisma-next-0.17.0

Conversation

@coderdan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Shadow of #749 to run CI with secrets — fork PRs get none, so the live-credential jobs failed there. Commits are @wmadden's, unmodified (head e69da21). Close whichever of the two doesn't merge.

Reviewed before pushing: dependency swap is the 0.17 publish surface only (@prisma/orm-*), lockfile resolutions all registry-integrity, no lifecycle-script changes; full stack-prisma unit suite passes locally (345 passed, 27 live-credential tests skipped — this PR's CI covers those).

wmadden-electric and others added 3 commits August 5, 2026 09:19
…sh surface)

Prisma Next 0.17 retires the @prisma-next/* scope: the framework now
publishes as consolidated @prisma/orm-* shells plus the prisma-next bin
shim, and an application depends on exactly one database facade. This
upgrades the extension, the example app, and the CLI's project detection
to that surface, following the upstream 0.16-to-0.17 extension-author
recipe.

- Depend on @prisma/orm-{framework,family-sql,toolchain} 0.17.0, with
  @prisma/orm-target-postgres as a peer; rewrite every import to the
  shell subpaths (one-hop mapping from shells.ts).
- Strip the sha256: prefix from all committed hashes (upstream codemod)
  and move migration contract snapshots into the content-addressed
  migrations/snapshots/ store (upstream one-shot migrator) — this
  supersedes the hand-built layout from PR #749; the 0.17 migrator
  converts the tree cleanly and re-verifies every migrationHash.
- Rename extensionPacks -> extensions, re-emit src/contract.{json,d.ts},
  and re-anchor the migration set (from/to hashes + recomputed
  migrationHash; the frozen 3.0.2 upgrade edge keeps its baked 3.0.2
  ops bytes).
- Declare the emitted type imports under the package's real published
  name (@cipherstash/stack-prisma/*) instead of the stale
  @prisma-next/extension-cipherstash/* names, which 0.17 emits verbatim
  into consumer contract.d.ts files.
- Publish the v3 codecs as Postgres target descriptors (postgresCodec
  with nativeType + identity jsonProjection) through
  types.codecTypes.codecDescriptors, replacing the deleted meta channel
  and codecInstances slot.
- Example app: single-facade install (@prisma/orm-postgres), facade
  defineConfig, converted migrations tree, refreshed vendored
  cipherstash space, deleteCount -> deleteAndCount.
- stash CLI: detect 0.17 projects (prisma-next / @prisma/orm-*).
- Cooldown exclusions, supply-chain test, stash-prisma skill, and docs
  updated; changeset included (major for @cipherstash/stack-prisma).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: willbot <w.a.madden+machine@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Madden <madden@prisma.io>
…isma-update-1a7853

Signed-off-by: willbot <w.a.madden+machine@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Madden <madden@prisma.io>

# Conflicts:
#	pnpm-workspace.yaml
- Restore the pre-0.17 package names in historical CHANGELOG entries —
  release notes describe the dependencies of their own release, and the
  0.17 rename lands via the changeset, not by rewriting history.
- Drop the 'as unknown as Contract' assertion in the PSL interpretation
  test: on 0.17 the descriptor's contractJson is directly assignable to
  the interpreter's composedExtensionContracts map, so the cast (and the
  Contract import) were dead weight.
- Document the ./codec-types and ./operation-types subpaths in the
  README export table — generated contract.d.ts files import them, so
  they are public surface. No require entries added: the package (like
  the whole @prisma/orm-* 0.17 surface it plugs into) is ESM-only, and
  was before this PR.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: willbot <w.a.madden+machine@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Madden <madden@prisma.io>
@coderdan
coderdan requested a review from a team as a code owner August 11, 2026 03:24
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