Am I Wrong? My Team Lead Insists This Isn’t a Breaking Change

I’m dealing with a situation where my team lead never seems to admit when she’s wrong. Here’s what’s happening.

We’re using a package that’s at version 3.0.3, where a certain object (cds object) is required. If you don’t provide it, the code fails.

In version 3.0.4, that requirement is completely removed, meaning the code inside the file is noticeably different. However, instead of following semantic versioning, which would require a major version bump for breaking changes, they just released it as a patch update (3.0.4).

My issue is that I’m still passing cds as a parameter, but in 3.0.4, it doesn’t even exist in the code anymore. So now I’m passing an object into a function that no longer expects it. That’s breaking behavior because it fundamentally changes how the code interacts with existing implementations.

She’s arguing that it’s not a breaking change, and then she also said it’s actually considered a minor change. And I’m like… how? The last digit was upgraded, which makes it a patch, but it’s not a patch because the code changed so much. So technically, it’s a major change. But I just stopped.

Then in the daily stand-up, she wanted to argue with me about it, trying to make me look stupid just because she didn’t wanna look stupid.

Am I wrong here? Isn’t this technically a breaking change under semantic versioning rules?