<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Deprecation on API Coding</title>
    <link>https://apicoding.com/tags/deprecation/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Deprecation on API Coding</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://apicoding.com/tags/deprecation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Breaking Changes: How to Avoid Shipping Them and What to Do When You Must</title>
      <link>https://apicoding.com/2026/03/23/breaking-changes-how-to-avoid-shipping-them-and-what-to-do-when-you-must/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://apicoding.com/2026/03/23/breaking-changes-how-to-avoid-shipping-them-and-what-to-do-when-you-must/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;A breaking change is any modification to an API that requires consumers to update their integration to continue functioning. The definition is straightforward. The practice of avoiding breaking changes while evolving an API requires engineering discipline that most teams underestimate until they have shipped a breaking change to a production API and experienced the resulting incident response.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The instinct to avoid defining something as a breaking change is strong. Removing a field that is not documented is tempting to classify as cleanup rather than a breaking change. Changing an error code from 400 to 422 for a validation failure seems like a trivial semantic correction. Adding a required field to a request body seems like a new feature rather than a breaking change. Each of these reclassifications is wrong, and each produces consumers whose integrations fail after the change.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
