Skip to content

docs(sdks): clarify Cloud vs self-hosted SDK compatibility - #13418

Open
cursor[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/sdk-readme-self-hosted-lag
Open

docs(sdks): clarify Cloud vs self-hosted SDK compatibility#13418
cursor[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/sdk-readme-self-hosted-lag

Conversation

@cursor

@cursor cursor Bot commented Aug 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Updates the generated SDK README warning from SDKs.php so it no longer claims blanket compatibility with server version X.

Self-hosted releases can lag Appwrite Cloud. Users on Flutter SDK 26 against self-hosted 1.9.6 hit parse failures (Execution.resourceType) after following README text that said the package was compatible with 1.9.x. Chirag confirmed 26.x is intentional for Cloud-ahead APIs and agreed the READMEs should be clearer (Discord thread, #1858, closed fallback #1846).

New wording: the advertised version is as shipped on Cloud; self-hosted users should pick a matching older SDK from previous releases when APIs differ.

Companion: sdk-generator template package-doc update (same message in Flutter/Dart/Web generated docs).

Test Plan

  • Diff-only docs string in SDKs.php; no runtime behavior change.
  • Next sdks task run will emit the new warning into published SDK READMEs.

Related PRs and Issues

Checklist

  • Have you read the Contributing Guidelines on issues?
  • If the PR includes a change to an API's metadata (desc, label, params, etc.), does it also include updated API specs and example docs?
Open in Web View Automation 

Published SDK READMEs said they were compatible with server version X,
which misled self-hosted users onto Cloud-ahead majors (e.g. Flutter 26
against Appwrite 1.9.6). Spell out that the target is Cloud and that
self-hosted may need an older SDK release.

Co-authored-by: chiragaggarwal5k <chiragaggarwal5k@gmail.com>
@cursor
cursor Bot requested a review from ChiragAgg5k August 29, 2026 03:39
@cursor
cursor Bot marked this pull request as ready for review August 29, 2026 03:39
@greptile-apps

greptile-apps Bot commented Aug 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Greptile Summary

The PR clarifies that generated SDK compatibility targets the Appwrite server version deployed on Cloud, while self-hosted installations may require an older matching SDK.

  • Replaces the blanket server-compatibility claim in generated SDK READMEs.
  • Directs self-hosted users to previous SDK releases when their installation exposes an older API.

Confidence Score: 5/5

The PR appears safe to merge because it changes only generated documentation wording and preserves the correct server-version value and release link.

The revised warning accurately distinguishes Cloud’s API target from potentially lagging self-hosted releases without changing SDK generation or runtime behavior.

Important Files Changed

Filename Overview
src/Appwrite/Platform/Tasks/SDKs.php Updates only the generated SDK README warning; the interpolated value is the selected Appwrite server/API specification version, and no correctness issue was identified.

Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "docs(sdks): clarify Cloud vs self-hosted..." | Re-trigger Greptile

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

✨ Benchmark results

Comparing main (before) → docs/sdk-readme-self-hosted-lag (after).

Metric Before After Change
🚀 Requests/sec 227.4 226.37 -0.5%
⏱️ Latency P50 78.75 ms 80.03 ms +1.6%
⏱️ Latency P95 171.58 ms 168.39 ms -1.9%
Per-scenario breakdown & investigation details

Metrics below reflect the current branch (after). Δ P95 compares against the base.

Scenario P50 (ms) P95 (ms) Requests RPS Δ P95 (ms)
API total 80.03 168.39 14,022 226.37 -3.19
Account 134.24 254.52 738 12.24 -20.37
TablesDB 82.47 148.83 7,626 124.91 +0.17
Storage 66.02 142.6 3,690 62.85 +10.38
Functions 98.03 194.39 1,968 34.1 -6.95

Top API waits (after)

API request Max wait (ms)
functions.create 399.82
account.get 384.26
account.name.update 375.38
tablesdb.rows.get 347.88
account.prefs.update 342.35

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.

1 participant