Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Dec 19, 2018. It is now read-only.

Upgrade to VS 2017 #925

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 1, 2017
Merged

Upgrade to VS 2017 #925

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 1, 2017

Conversation

natemcmaster
Copy link
Contributor

Remove project.json and upgrade to MSBuild.

Other notable changes:
Removed unused baseline.json files. There were baseline files for "Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Testing" package, even though there was no project by that name. cc @javiercn @Eilon

@Tratcher
Copy link
Member

Tratcher commented Feb 1, 2017

Those baselines should be moved from Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Testing to Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.IntegrationTesting

Copy link
Member

@Tratcher Tratcher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What is test/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Hosting.TestSites/.notest

@natemcmaster
Copy link
Contributor Author

That project isn't an automated test project. It's a test app. .notest prevents korebuild from running dotnet test on the project.

@Eilon
Copy link
Contributor

Eilon commented Feb 1, 2017

Regarding baselines, if the project got renamed, there's no point renaming the baseline, because the whole thing is a breaking change. Is this a package we publish? Should we even be checking for breaking changes in it?

@natemcmaster
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not sure the baseline files were ever used. They were added in 911da31, but even then, there was no project named Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Testing. See https://github.com/aspnet/Hosting/tree/911da31476615a5ce4bfe2c9a59cffeddb8c2422/src/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Testing

<PropertyGroup>
<Description>ASP.NET Core hosting server abstractions for web applications.</Description>
<TargetFrameworks>net451;netstandard1.3</TargetFrameworks>
<NoWarn>$(NoWarn);CS1591</NoWarn>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should this go into common.props?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think not. It's nice to keep this a little more visible as a reminder that we are missing XML docs in some API

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we used the internal keyword more I would agree. The fact that we have this in every single project is why I think it should go into the common props files.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I still prefer it in the project, right next to the GenerateDocumentationFile flag, and for the sake of consistency about what common.props is really for... but I don't care a whole lot either way.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

...and I'd guess most devs won't care either.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm with @natemcmaster here, we should leave it per-project. We should ideally do what we did in EF and put explicit docs for .Internal types saying they're not supported. But, until then...

<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk">

<PropertyGroup>
<TargetFrameworks>net451;netcoreapp1.1</TargetFrameworks>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Need a RuntimeIdentifier here?

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. This is a class library. RID is only required for exe projects, and as a workaround for dotnet/sdk#396

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking closer its neither, not supposed to be run, just showing examples of how startups work

@natemcmaster natemcmaster merged commit 2a50762 into dev Feb 1, 2017
@natemcmaster natemcmaster deleted the namc/vs2017 branch February 1, 2017 18:35
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants