I Depended on You and You Broke Me: An Empirical Study of Manifesting Breaking Changes in Client Packages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex software systems have a network of dependencies. Developers often configure package managers (e.g., npm ) to automatically update dependencies with each publication of new releases containing bug fixes and new features. When a dependency release introduces backward-incompatible changes, commonly known as breaking changes , dependent packages may not build anymore. This may indirectly impact downstream packages, but the impact of breaking changes and how dependent packages recover from these breaking changes remain unclear. To close this gap, we investigated the manifestation of breaking changes in the npm ecosystem, focusing on cases where packages’ builds are impacted by breaking changes from their dependencies. We measured the extent to which breaking changes affect dependent packages. Our analyses show that around 12% of the dependent packages and 14% of their releases were impacted by a breaking change during updates of non-major releases of their dependencies. We observed that, from all of the manifesting breaking changes, 44% were introduced in both minor and patch releases, which in principle should be backward compatible. Clients recovered themselves from these breaking changes in half of the cases, most frequently by upgrading or downgrading the provider’s version without changing the versioning configuration in the package manager. We expect that these results help developers understand the potential impact of such changes and recover from them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".