Add support for contentFiles to Fake.DotNet.NuGet packaging

[chappoo]

Fixes #2144

[chappoo]

@matthid As per contribution docs, I branched from my fork origin master branch and created this PR to base on upstream master. Is that correct? I've seen other branches in upstream that have been branched / base off release/next.

[matthid]

@chappoo Usually the diff between master and release/next is not too big and github allows to change the target branch (and I already did) so not an issue. But where are the docs because currently targeting release/next is preferred...

[chappoo]

@matthid I was looking here: http://fake.build/contributing.html#Programming

This is linked to from the main repo README

[matthid]

@chappoo Thanks will try to update. Can you rebase or push an empty commit to re-trigger the CI processes (seems to have problems with changed branch target, maybe I was too fast)

[chappoo]

@matthid Done - rebased on release/next

[matthid]

No idea why this pr doesn't trigger any CI (we have many so I'd assume github is to blame)... Maybe close and add a new one?

[matthid]

Ok it looks like they have some problems: https://status.github.com/messages

[chappoo]

I saw the data consistency outage earlier - I think they had stopped all web-hooks as a precaution

[chappoo]

I might start again once they've fully resumed, will kill the PR / branch and start again, not sure I can open a new PR against a branch with a closed PR?

[matthid]

@chappoo Yes I think that's not a problem, you can push to the same branch after a previous PR has been merged and start a new PR (in fact that's what I'm doing all the time with the release/next branch on master)

[chappoo]

Looks like CI has magically started now

[matthid]

I think a small unit test for the new parameter would make sense

[chappoo]

I think a small unit test for the new parameter would make sense

I totally agree, I'm not familiar with the test setup here though. Are there existing unit tests for the NuGet module?

[matthid]

We recently added a more testable API (CreateProcess) and started to switch to it when new features are added (see https://github.com/fsharp/FAKE/pull/2120/files for example). The switch should be quite straight-forward and the latest documentation only actually lists the new API.

Once the module uses CreateProcess you would refactor an internal api which returns the CreateProcess<T> instance and use that for testing (see the other PR for details).

Let me know if that helps.

[matthid]

any interest in finishing this?

[chappoo]

I do, but unfortunately have had no time to spare since the last comms. With any luck, next week...

…

On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, 15:45 Matthias Dittrich ***@***.*** wrote: any interest in finishing this? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2165 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABCoaCs_KtmuNnVvF85Ug4z4gwwyZwiHks5uwYCDgaJpZM4XzJDe> .

[chappoo]

@matthid The notification for this merge reminded me of this (old!) PR... appreciate the acceptance.