feat: adapt to v1 #92

null8626 · 2025-09-12T11:52:23Z

The following pull request adapts the SDK to API v1.

src/structs/Api.ts

velddev · 2025-09-13T00:56:46Z

src/structs/Api.ts

  ): Promise<any> {
    const headers: IncomingHttpHeaders = {};
-    if (this.options.token) headers["authorization"] = this.options.token;
+    if (this.options.token) headers["authorization"] = `Bearer ${this.options.token}`;


Would also change the current v0 implementation

Oh v0 does not work with Bearer tokens? Damn

Why is this resolved?

Honestly, I don't remember. My bad. Resolved.

src/structs/Api.ts

src/structs/Webhook.ts

src/typings.ts

…ror to APIError, and describe weight property

null8626 · 2025-09-18T15:46:38Z

Breaking changes reverted.

Full diff between this and the commit prior to #91: 24a2ee1...null8626:node-sdk:master

Tested with npm run test. All that's left now is updating the README.

jpbberry · 2025-09-18T16:59:22Z

Not sure I agree with the concept of a separate class to denote a changing of versions. Either we should fit methods into the old class definition or we bump a major version.
Is there a discussion on this that I missed?

null8626 · 2025-09-18T17:31:52Z

Veld explicitly proposed that newer endpoints use a separate v1 class that inherit the older one. I believe he wanted this so that developers have a clear distinction on which is a v1 endpoint and which is a legacy endpoint. For example legacy's hasVoted can be confused with v1's getVote because they serve similar a purpose. I originally planned for the hasVoted method to use the v1 equivalent for it, but it would be a breaking change, and Veld is opposed to breaking changes that would require a major update in this situation (probably because if it's a major update, developers might miss it because they set the dependency versioning of @top-gg/sdk in their package.json to ^3.1.0 or whatever.)

Not only that, this is also supported by the fact that the v1 endpoints require a newer API token, while the legacy endpoints work with both legacy and newer API tokens.

jpbberry · 2025-09-18T18:13:53Z

@velddev mind weighing in on this? What's the aversion to a breaking major version bump? "Missing an update" doesn't really matter if things aren't changed to not break.

E.g. most of the old methods still use the v0 endpoints, so if v0 gets shut off it won't matter if people updated to the new package version or not.
Even people who go out of their way to implement the ApiV1 will also start failing when v0 stops.

I don't see any advantage for shying away from a breaking version here, and seems to break the line between service and library to change how the client is interacted with for an API change.

velddev · 2025-09-18T19:31:31Z

The goal of these changes is to build the foundation for the v1 API. The legacy API is finished. Any change we introduce shouldn't cause users who use the v0 API to have to change their code and make the experience adding new functionality more cumbersome.

A breaking change would dictate that we edit the current schema, and as long as the current API does not do that, we will not need to do this to the end user.

What we instead should do is have a new client which is built for the v0 API so that the end user can gradually adopt new features without the weight of having to migrate their current code to a new arbitrary refactored client version.

velddev · 2025-09-18T19:35:21Z

An example: how many times have you had to change your code because a library did a breaking change? Was it a good experience having to do that?

Now imagine that the breaking change does not give you any benefits.

Refactoring for the sake of it, while great for our code maintainability, is selfish towards the end user since every hour that is spent on refactoring, every user of the library will spend an equal amount of time figuring out how to fix their code

jpbberry · 2025-09-18T20:12:11Z

I think the disconnect comes from the fact that we're transitioning to a V1 API without it being able to expose the same functionality as V0.

I imagine this will add more refactoring for users than not. But if the V1 isn't going to able to do what V0 does then it is what it is.

null8626 · 2025-10-03T16:47:14Z

Breaking changes reverted.

Full diff between this and the commit prior to #91: 24a2ee1...null8626:node-sdk:master

Tested with npm run test. All that's left now is updating the README.

README updated.

velddev · 2026-02-01T16:17:14Z

src/structs/Api.ts

+   * ```js
+   * // Discord.js:
+   * const commands = (await bot.application.commands.fetch()).map(cmd => cmd.toJSON());
+   * 
+   * // Eris:
+   * const commands = await bot.getCommands();
+   * 
+   * // Discordeno:
+   * import { getApplicationCommands } from "discordeno";
+   * 
+   * const commands = await getApplicationCommands(bot);


these docs are awesome, thank you

No worries, Veld! ❤️

velddev

Assuming based on the PR, the two clients are split. LGTM.

jpbberry · 2026-02-01T20:40:35Z

src/utils/ApiError.ts

-  /** Possible response from Request */
-  public response?: Dispatcher.ResponseData;
-  constructor(code: number, text: string, response: Dispatcher.ResponseData) {
+export default class APIError extends Error {


pretty sure this would be a breaking change

Sorry. Resolved.

The response object is still missing, it's an accessible field

Sure, will revert.

null8626 and others added 11 commits May 26, 2025 00:29

fix: fix GET /bots/votes not working

26a58c2

feat: add widgets

d2cb2ce

feat: add small widgets

2327b15

style: remove trailing comma

13982a5

docs: readme overhaul

46ef8d1

feat: make webhooks more specific

db99c59

feat: remove features deprecated by v0

327e15b

feat: remove BotStats

1a03b27

deps: remove the dependence on @top-gg/eslint-config

ed43118

feat: adapt to v1

b27d294

*: minor tweaks

1b2027c

velddev requested changes Sep 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

null8626 added 8 commits September 13, 2025 10:01

[doc,revert]: rename WebhookVotePayload to WebhookPayload, TopggAPIEr…

157a44c

…ror to APIError, and describe weight property

refactor: remove redundant checks

4192bd3

feat: separate v1 from v0

8f986e1

refactor: use Bearer prefix for legacy and new tokens

6d866f5

doc: add @see Webhook#voteListener

66adfe3

doc: update documentation and readme

3a234ad

meta: make SDK description clearer

b2652b2

revert: revert breaking changes to webhooks

89be620

null8626 force-pushed the master branch from 7f8713d to 89be620 Compare September 16, 2025 03:26

revert: revert breaking changes

6fe8cf4

null8626 force-pushed the master branch from b50fb1d to 6fe8cf4 Compare September 18, 2025 16:51

doc: update readme

840abb8

null8626 force-pushed the master branch from 37ed65c to 840abb8 Compare October 3, 2025 16:45

null8626 added 3 commits October 7, 2025 12:49

ci: bump github workflow dependency versions

15fb73a

doc: fix less accurate naming

1ddf708

doc: objects, not dicts

59c5257

null8626 force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from ab74a42 to bba940b Compare October 10, 2025 07:04

doc: documentation tweaks

aa408ac

null8626 force-pushed the master branch from bba940b to aa408ac Compare October 10, 2025 07:33

null8626 and others added 4 commits October 10, 2025 17:25

feat: rename postBotCommands to postCommands

9f88be3

doc: readme tweak

eb64cb1

doc: fix API version links in README.md

2c159e0

doc: remove for more information link from README

40cae1c

igorwastaken mentioned this pull request Jan 5, 2026

feat: add v1 endpoints to sdk #93

Closed

revert: revert changes to the GitHub Workflows and eslint rules

7d342ca

velddev reviewed Feb 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

velddev previously approved these changes Feb 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

jpbberry reviewed Feb 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

revert: revert Authorization header change

4572c80

null8626 dismissed velddev’s stale review via 4572c80 February 1, 2026 20:45

null8626 added 6 commits February 2, 2026 03:51

revert: revert back to TopGGAPIError

6768ba1

revert: revert dependency version bumps

3059297

revert: revert script updates

e1226fd

fix: add discord-api-types to dev dependencies

0871797

revert: revert changes to the error class

5f70047

fix: remove unused import

bc9011f

null8626 requested a review from jpbberry February 1, 2026 21:42

null8626 added 2 commits February 2, 2026 05:01

doc: minor readme tweaks

ecd1dc1

doc: fix mismatched jsdoc argument name

2aef3eb

feat: adapt to v1 #92

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: adapt to v1 #92

Conversation

null8626 commented Sep 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

null8626 commented Sep 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jpbberry commented Sep 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

null8626 commented Sep 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jpbberry commented Sep 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

velddev commented Sep 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

velddev commented Sep 18, 2025

Uh oh!

jpbberry commented Sep 18, 2025

Uh oh!

null8626 commented Oct 3, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

velddev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

null8626 commented Sep 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

null8626 commented Sep 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jpbberry commented Sep 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

null8626 commented Sep 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

jpbberry commented Sep 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

velddev commented Sep 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading