Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Feb 23, 2021. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@dougbu
Copy link
Contributor

@dougbu dougbu commented Mar 7, 2017

nit: sort dependencies

- same for problems with centralized workarounds - major visible change is web sites are now x86 programs when running on .NET Framework - add lower-level workarounds to functional tests - support `/p:GenerateBaselines=true` on build command line - remaining compilation warnings cannot be avoided - dotnet/sdk#954 blocks disabling these warnings; #202 tracks an eventual fix nit: sort dependencies
@dnfclas
Copy link

dnfclas commented Mar 7, 2017

@dougbu,
Thanks for having already signed the Contribution License Agreement. Your agreement was validated by .NET Foundation. We will now review your pull request.
Thanks,
.NET Foundation Pull Request Bot

<Import Project="..\..\build\common.props" />

<PropertyGroup>
<IsPackable>false</IsPackable>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This isn't a workaround. Can you leave the IsPackable settings?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Huh? Build doesn't pack these projects.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Exactly.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🆗


<ItemGroup>
<DotNetCliToolReference Include="Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools.DotNet" Version="1.2.0-*" />
<DotNetCliToolReference Include="Microsoft.Extensions.SecretManager.Tools" Version="1.0.1-*" />
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This isn't a workaround. Can you leave it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What are the tools used for in this context? Project builds and runs fine and that's all we need for the sample.

Copy link
Contributor

@natemcmaster natemcmaster Mar 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This tool is used to set secrets from command line. Even if not in automated tests, it's still used during "dotnet restore". This is one of the validations this project provides. Restore would fail if broke the secretmanager tool.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No issue occurs during dotnet restore. I don't get your point here.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No issue occurs during dotnet restore.

That means restore on Microsoft.Extensions.SecretManager.Tools is working. If we were to change this package to target netcoreapp2.0, this would cause restore to fail because dotnet-CLI does not (yet) support tools packages that target .NET Core 2.0.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My point was restore of the web site project works with my changes in place. But, I'll revert this removal.

</PropertyGroup>

<PropertyGroup Condition=" '$(TargetFramework)' != 'netcoreapp1.1' ">
<!-- Work around https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/926. Align with bitness of the web site projects. -->
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you set OutputType=exe, does this an the binding redirects issue go away?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, but changing $(OutputType) has additional implications that are irrelevant for test projects. And, it's Just Weird:tm:.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What are those additional implications? .NET Core test apps are actually OutputType=exe under the hood.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This isn't a .NET Core issue; see the condition 2 lines up. Binding redirects are needed only with full .NET Framework. And, tests are executed using testhost.exe or testhost.x86.exe.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My point was I don't buy "it's weird" as a reason not to use OutputType=exe. I know this is for .NET Framework.

What are the additional implications? I'm wondering why we need 10 lines of comments and workaround when one line would do.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What are the additional implications?

For example, bin\Debug\net452\win7-x64\FunctionalTests.exe does absolutely nothing except exit.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Discussed offline. I'll leave this as I've got it. If prefer just the bug links to reduce the comment verbiage, LMK.

Copy link
Contributor

@natemcmaster natemcmaster left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In person discussion. Not worth going more rounds on this one. If tests, pass :shipit:

@dougbu
Copy link
Contributor Author

dougbu commented Mar 7, 2017

Not worth going more rounds on this one.

Much appreciated. I'll make a couple of the changes you requested and get this in.

@dougbu
Copy link
Contributor Author

dougbu commented Mar 7, 2017

@dougbu dougbu closed this Mar 7, 2017
@dougbu dougbu deleted the dougbu/fewer.workarounds branch March 7, 2017 22:56
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

4 participants