Skip to content

Added RabbitMQ 4 commodity#165

Draft
brooks630 wants to merge 7 commits intoLandRegistry:developfrom
brooks630:feature/rabbitmq-4
Draft

Added RabbitMQ 4 commodity#165
brooks630 wants to merge 7 commits intoLandRegistry:developfrom
brooks630:feature/rabbitmq-4

Conversation

@brooks630
Copy link
Contributor

@brooks630 brooks630 commented Mar 24, 2025

  • What kind of change does this PR introduce (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)?
    Feature

  • What is the current behavior?
    RabbitMQ 3 is supported as a commodity, however RabbitMQ 4 is not

  • What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
    RabbitMQ 4 is available as a commodity.

  • Does this PR introduce a breaking change? If so, what actions will users need to take in order to regain compatibility?
    No

Checklists

All submissions

  • Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
  • Is this PR targeting the develop branch, and the branch rebased with commits squashed if needed?
  • Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?

New feature and bug fix submissions

  • Has your submission been tested locally?
  • Has documentation such as the README been updated if necessary?
  • Have you linted your new code (using rubocop and markdownlint), and are not introducing any new offenses?

@brooks630
Copy link
Contributor Author

There are some breaking changes between RabbitMQ 3 and 4; see https://www.rabbitmq.com/docs/whats-new - hence adding it as a new commodity.

@brooks630 brooks630 marked this pull request as draft March 24, 2025 22:57
@sichapman
Copy link
Collaborator

No need for 2.0/3.7 compose fragments as next devenv version will not support them

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
# This is so a reset (dc down) won't remove the base rabbit image, only the one created from this dockerfile
FROM docker.io/rabbitmq:4-management
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think although postgres treats minor versions as patches, rabbit may treat them as actual feature releases, so our externally managed versions may get left behind by local?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would a fix to 4.2 be okay? I'd also like to avoid going the opposite way and having a version that's too far behind locally.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Might be worth checking with w****s that 4.2 is correct

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

but yes if so

Copy link
Contributor Author

@brooks630 brooks630 Mar 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

4.2 is fine according to w****s

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