.NET 6.0.101 breaks GENERIC_MATH_FEATURE/PreviewFeatures functionallity #62840

samtrion · 2021-12-15T12:23:32Z

Description

After updating to the latest Visual Studio 2022 version on 12/14/21 and .NET SDK version 6.0.101, the project could not be built. Since the interfaces IBinaryNumber, IComparisonOperators & IFloatingPoint could no longer be found in the project https://github.com/samtrion/netevolve-guard

Reproduction Steps

Trying to build project with .NET 6.0.101

Expected behavior

Project can continue to be built successfully.

Actual behavior

Project can no longer be created because the interfaces IBinaryNumber, IComparisonOperators & IFloatingPoint are not available.

Regression?

Yes, with the mentioned workaround the creation of the project works.

Known Workarounds

Disabled the rollForward via the global.json.

{
  "sdk": {
    "version": "6.0.100",
    "rollForward": "disable"
  }
}

Configuration

Which version of .NET is the code running on?
So far always the latest SDK version of .NET 6
What OS and version, and what distro if applicable?
Windows 10 & Windows 11
What is the architecture (x64, x86, ARM, ARM64)?
x64
Do you know whether it is specific to that configuration?
Was able to recreate the issue both locally and on the GitHub Actions Runner.

Other information

No response

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

dotnet-issue-labeler · 2021-12-15T12:23:35Z

I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this issue. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

ghost · 2021-12-15T14:21:42Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-numerics
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

Description

After updating to the latest Visual Studio 2022 version on 12/14/21 and .NET SDK version 6.0.101, the project could not be built. Since the interfaces IBinaryNumber, IComparisonOperators & IFloatingPoint could no longer be found in the project https://github.com/samtrion/netevolve-guard

Reproduction Steps

Trying to build project with .NET 6.0.101

Expected behavior

Project can continue to be built successfully.

Actual behavior

Project can no longer be created because the interfaces IBinaryNumber, IComparisonOperators & IFloatingPoint are not available.

Regression?

Yes, with the mentioned workaround the creation of the project works.

Known Workarounds

Disabled the rollForward via the global.json.

{
  "sdk": {
    "version": "6.0.100",
    "rollForward": "disable"
  }
}

Configuration

Which version of .NET is the code running on?
So far always the latest SDK version of .NET 6
What OS and version, and what distro if applicable?
Windows 10 & Windows 11
What is the architecture (x64, x86, ARM, ARM64)?
x64
Do you know whether it is specific to that configuration?
Was able to recreate the issue both locally and on the GitHub Actions Runner.

Other information

No response

Author:	samtrion
Assignees:	-
Labels:	`area-System.Numerics`, `untriaged`
Milestone:	-

danmoseley · 2021-12-15T20:46:14Z

@krwq

Chamberlain91 · 2021-12-16T19:53:27Z

I have also suffered this error in my hobby project. I'm unsure how to install 6.0.100 again. The SDK installer complains I have another version of the project and adding that global.json gives me:

Could not execute because the application was not found or a compatible .NET SDK is not installed.
Possible reasons for this include:
  * You intended to execute a .NET program:
      The application 'build' does not exist.
  * You intended to execute a .NET SDK command:
      A compatible installed .NET SDK for global.json version [6.0.100] from [C:\Users\<my_user_project_path>\global.json] was not found.
      Install the [6.0.100] .NET SDK or update [C:\Users\<my_user_project_path>\global.json] with an installed .NET SDK:
        2.1.701 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        2.1.801 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        2.1.802 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        3.0.100-preview9-014004 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        5.0.100-rc.2.20479.15 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        6.0.101 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]

samtrion · 2021-12-16T20:17:20Z

I have also suffered this error in my hobby project. I'm unsure how to install 6.0.100 again. The SDK installer complains I have another version of the project and adding that global.json gives me:

Could not execute because the application was not found or a compatible .NET SDK is not installed.
Possible reasons for this include:
  * You intended to execute a .NET program:
      The application 'build' does not exist.
  * You intended to execute a .NET SDK command:
      A compatible installed .NET SDK for global.json version [6.0.100] from [C:\Users\<my_user_project_path>\global.json] was not found.
      Install the [6.0.100] .NET SDK or update [C:\Users\<my_user_project_path>\global.json] with an installed .NET SDK:
        2.1.701 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        2.1.801 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        2.1.802 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        3.0.100-preview9-014004 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        5.0.100-rc.2.20479.15 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]
        6.0.101 [C:\Program Files\dotnet\sdk]

You can find the download here - https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/download/dotnet/6.0#version_1

martincostello · 2021-12-16T22:29:15Z

I also logged this in the SDK repo: dotnet/sdk#23073

danmoseley · 2021-12-16T23:38:08Z

cc @safern in case he's around tomorrow and has insights. We shouldn't have broken this...

safern · 2021-12-16T23:57:31Z

Since we serviced the ref pack we might have broken it because of file versions so with 6.0.1 assembly conflict resolution might prefer the System.Runtime in the ref pack rather than the one in the System.Runtime.Experimental package.

Looking to confirm this theory and see what we can do for next servicing releases.

safern · 2021-12-17T00:25:24Z

I was able to confirm that theory with the repository shared on the issue, this is the output from the conflict resolution:

Encountered conflict between 'Reference:C:\Users\safern\.nuget\packages\system.runtime.experimental\6.0.0\ref\net6.0\System.Runtime.dll' and 'Reference:C:\Program Files\dotnet\packs\Microsoft.NETCore.App.Ref\6.0.1\ref/net6.0/System.Runtime.dll'. Choosing 'Reference:C:\Program Files\dotnet\packs\Microsoft.NETCore.App.Ref\6.0.1\ref/net6.0/System.Runtime.dll' because file version '6.0.121.56705' is greater than '6.0.121.52210'.

You can workaround this if you want to use 6.0.101 SDK by adding this target to the projects that want to use System.Runtime.Experimental (in the case of netevolve-guard, your .Experimental and .Experimental.Tests projects) you can add it in a common location like a Directory.Build.targets file:

  <Target Name="RemoveSystemRuntimeFromRefPack"
          BeforeTargets="_HandlePackageFileConflicts"
          Condition="'@(Reference -> WithMetadataValue('NugetPackageId', 'System.Runtime.Experimental'))' != ''">
    <ItemGroup>
      <Reference Remove="@(Reference)"
                 Condition="$([System.String]::Copy(%(Reference.Identity)).Contains('System.Runtime.dll')) and
                            '%(Reference.NuGetPackageId)' == 'Microsoft.NETCore.App.Ref'" />
    </ItemGroup>
  </Target>

@ericstj @dsplaisted is there a way to tell package conflict file resolution to always choose the asset from System.Runtime.Experimental via a platform manifest or package override file in the ref pack? Or do we have to service System.Runtime.Experimental every time we service the ref pack?

ericstj · 2021-12-17T00:44:52Z

We intentionally tried to address this here: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/55678/files#diff-41acba6267202db943fa29d434bb231021a7b8b47b63c990bd61708111c67515R33

I can't see where we're addressing conflict resolution in the current approach, did that get removed?

ericstj · 2021-12-17T00:47:38Z

Rereading above, it looks like folks didn't understand how ref-pack servicing / file-versions worked when we did it initially.

6.0.121.56705' is greater than '6.0.121.52210'

I think we should just modify how much gap we bump the experimental reference assembly to make sure it will be higher than servicing.

safern · 2021-12-17T00:54:36Z

Should we just set the minor version of the file version for System.Runtime.Experimental so that we guarantee it is always greater?

tannergooding · 2022-01-03T19:23:29Z

Should we just set the minor version of the file version for System.Runtime.Experimental so that we guarantee it is always greater?

I don't think there is a particular preference provided we know we won't need to publish some actual v6.1 version of the things at any point.

ericstj · 2022-01-03T19:33:32Z

I think bumping the minor version of only the file version should be fine. Fix should go here:

runtime/src/libraries/System.Runtime.Experimental/ref/System.Runtime.Experimental.csproj

Line 35 in 45d1f9e

    
           <FileVersion>$(_FileVersionMaj).$(_FileVersionMin).$([MSBuild]::Add($(_FileVersionBld), 100)).$(_FileVersionRev)</FileVersion>

And we should be able to remove the incrementing of _FileVersionBld

safern · 2022-01-03T19:48:44Z

Let me know if help is needed to drive fixing this and porting it. We have till Monday to make the cut for 6.0.2

tannergooding · 2022-01-03T19:53:28Z

Do I just need to put up a PR against main or do I need to also target some existing servicing branch?

tannergooding · 2022-01-03T19:54:10Z

Likewise, is the minor version differing going to cause problems with version resolution or if we do end up exposing an actual v6.1 in the future?

safern · 2022-01-03T20:31:03Z

Do I just need to put up a PR against main or do I need to also target some existing servicing branch?

We need to put it against main and against release/6.0 and then go over through servicing approval.

Likewise, is the minor version differing going to cause problems with version resolution or if we do end up exposing an actual v6.1 in the future?

It shouldn't be a problem. If needed we can always bump the minor version for the file version attribute on v6.1 to something like 6.200.x

dotnet-issue-labeler bot added the untriaged New issue has not been triaged by the area owner label Dec 15, 2021

vcsjones added the area-System.Numerics label Dec 15, 2021

danmoseley added the regression-from-last-release label Dec 15, 2021

safern added this to the 6.0.x milestone Dec 17, 2021

martincostello mentioned this issue Dec 17, 2021

Code using INumber<T> and preview features does not compile with .NET 6.0.101 SDK dotnet/sdk#23073

Closed

tannergooding mentioned this issue Jan 3, 2022

[API Proposal/Question]: IFloatingPoint<TSelf> is totally base 2 IEEE 1985 oriented. We also need the basics for base10/decimal and other rational/fraction/real like numbers #62293

Closed

BillWagner mentioned this issue Jan 3, 2022

Cover Static abstract interfaces dotnet/docs#27503

Merged

safern mentioned this issue Jan 8, 2022

[release/6.0] Fix GENERIC_MATH_FEATURE by making sure we always choose the right ref #63525

Merged

ghost added in-pr There is an active PR which will close this issue when it is merged and removed in-pr There is an active PR which will close this issue when it is merged labels Jan 8, 2022

safern mentioned this issue Jan 10, 2022

Set File Version Minor for System.Runtime.Experimental #63599

Merged

ghost added the in-pr There is an active PR which will close this issue when it is merged label Jan 10, 2022

safern closed this as completed in #63599 Jan 11, 2022

ghost removed the in-pr There is an active PR which will close this issue when it is merged label Jan 11, 2022

martincostello mentioned this issue Jan 27, 2022

Converting to DateOnly/TimeOnly from string #59253

Closed

martincostello mentioned this issue Feb 8, 2022

Application fails to start using System.Runtime.Experimental 6.0.1 with .NET 6.0.2 #65018

Closed

ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 10, 2022

tannergooding removed the untriaged New issue has not been triaged by the area owner label Jun 24, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

.NET 6.0.101 breaks GENERIC_MATH_FEATURE/PreviewFeatures functionallity #62840

.NET 6.0.101 breaks GENERIC_MATH_FEATURE/PreviewFeatures functionallity #62840

samtrion commented Dec 15, 2021

dotnet-issue-labeler bot commented Dec 15, 2021

ghost commented Dec 15, 2021

Description

Reproduction Steps

Expected behavior

Actual behavior

Regression?

Known Workarounds

Configuration

Other information

danmoseley commented Dec 15, 2021

Chamberlain91 commented Dec 16, 2021

samtrion commented Dec 16, 2021

martincostello commented Dec 16, 2021

danmoseley commented Dec 16, 2021

safern commented Dec 16, 2021

safern commented Dec 17, 2021 •

edited

Loading

ericstj commented Dec 17, 2021 •

edited

Loading

ericstj commented Dec 17, 2021

safern commented Dec 17, 2021

tannergooding commented Jan 3, 2022

ericstj commented Jan 3, 2022

safern commented Jan 3, 2022

tannergooding commented Jan 3, 2022

tannergooding commented Jan 3, 2022

safern commented Jan 3, 2022

.NET 6.0.101 breaks GENERIC_MATH_FEATURE/PreviewFeatures functionallity #62840

.NET 6.0.101 breaks GENERIC_MATH_FEATURE/PreviewFeatures functionallity #62840

Comments

samtrion commented Dec 15, 2021

Description

Reproduction Steps

Expected behavior

Actual behavior

Regression?

Known Workarounds

Configuration

Other information

dotnet-issue-labeler bot commented Dec 15, 2021

ghost commented Dec 15, 2021

Description

Reproduction Steps

Expected behavior

Actual behavior

Regression?

Known Workarounds

Configuration

Other information

danmoseley commented Dec 15, 2021

Chamberlain91 commented Dec 16, 2021

samtrion commented Dec 16, 2021

martincostello commented Dec 16, 2021

danmoseley commented Dec 16, 2021

safern commented Dec 16, 2021

safern commented Dec 17, 2021 • edited Loading

ericstj commented Dec 17, 2021 • edited Loading

ericstj commented Dec 17, 2021

safern commented Dec 17, 2021

tannergooding commented Jan 3, 2022

ericstj commented Jan 3, 2022

safern commented Jan 3, 2022

tannergooding commented Jan 3, 2022

tannergooding commented Jan 3, 2022

safern commented Jan 3, 2022

safern commented Dec 17, 2021 •

edited

Loading

ericstj commented Dec 17, 2021 •

edited

Loading