-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
update the branding for 5.0.2 #45799
Conversation
Tagging subscribers to this area: @safern, @ViktorHofer Issue Details
@ericstj whats the correct entry in the package index "5.0.0.0": "5.0.0" or "5.0.0.0":"5.0.0.2" ? what are the rules here
|
These indicate which assembly version appears in which package version. Left side is assembly version, right side is package version |
@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ | |||
<Project> | |||
<Import Project="..\Directory.Build.props" /> | |||
<PropertyGroup> | |||
<PackageVersion>5.0.1</PackageVersion> | |||
<AssemblyVersion>5.0.0.1</AssemblyVersion> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this showing as a diff here? We can't go backwards in AssemblyVersion. Was this shipped this way? I thought you had reverted the AssemblyVersions in the shipping package.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We were late in the cycle so we decided to fix this in 5.0.2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Anipik just to double check, do you intend to ship the 5.0.2 version of this package with 5.0.0.0 as the assembly version even though the 5.0.1 version of the package had an assembly version of 5.0.0.1? Wouldn't that be breaking change in various components?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Confirmed that this shipped with the incremented version, we have to keep it:
// C:\Users\erics\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_microsoft.extensions.dependencyinjection.5.0.1.nupkg\lib\net5.0\Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.dll
// Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection, Version=5.0.0.1, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=adb9793829ddae60
we can have only one entry corresponding to 5.0.0.0 so should we update this to 5.0.2 or keep it to 5.0.0 |
cc @akoeplinger can u take a look at the mono failure, it seems legit. @maryamariyan it seems related to the dependencyInjection change in 5.0.1 |
The mono failure is addressed with #45887 so you can ignore it. |
@Anipik noticed failure below from the CI logs: (link) Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Tests.dll -xml testResults.xml -nologo -nocolor -notrait category=IgnoreForCI -notrait category=OuterLoop -notrait category=failing
Discovering: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Tests (method display = ClassAndMethod, method display options = None)
Discovered: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Tests (found 99 of 429 test cases)
Starting: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Tests (parallel test collections = on, max threads = 2)
Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.ServiceLookup.CallSiteFactoryTest.CreateCallSite_Throws_IfClosedTypeDoesNotSatisfyAbstractClassGenericConstraint [FAIL]
System.NullReferenceException : Object reference not set to an instance of an object
Stack Trace:
/_/src/mono/netcore/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/Reflection/RuntimeMethodInfo.cs(384,0): at System.Reflection.RuntimeMethodInfo.Invoke(Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, Binder binder, Object[] parameters, CultureInfo culture)
Finished: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Tests
=== TEST EXECUTION SUMMARY ===
Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Tests Total: 214, Errors: 0, Failed: 1, Skipped: 0, Time: 0.434s building your branch locally now to check for repro. |
I'm not running on mono, so couldn't reproduce the failure locally. |
You could run on mono by building with
Then run the tests as usual but pass down |
@ericstj whats the correct entry in the package index
"5.0.0.0": "5.0.0" or "5.0.0.0":"5.0.0.2" ? what are the rules here