Skip to content
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension


Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions src/lib/apimanifest.csproj
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
<IncludeAssets>runtime; build; native; contentfiles; analyzers; buildtransitive</IncludeAssets>
<PrivateAssets>all</PrivateAssets>
</PackageReference>
<PackageReference Include="System.Text.Json" Version="[6.0,9.0)" />
<PackageReference Include="System.Text.Json" Version="[6.0,10.0)" />
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will this prevent people from testing applications using .NET 10 previews next year?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes, that's what our team (OpenAPI.net, OpenAPI.net.Odata, this. Microsoft.Plugins.Manifest, kiota, Microsoft.Graph....) has been doing for the past couple of years.
This requires us to be reactive, but gives an escape hatch in case a breaking change would happen with the new version.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The doesn't sound ideal if it blocks people from being able to test their apps with .NET 10 at all if you don't relax the restriction until November 2025.

I don't happen to use anything that depends on this assembly, but I test my apps with every preview of .NET before they reach GA. This restriction would be a blocker to any such testing, and it's also not good for users who want to adopt .NET vNext on day 0 and find it to be impossible due to the upper constraint.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does Microsoft.OpenApi have such a restriction? I've had zero issues with it with testing the new Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi package in the .NET 9 previews and the final release. If it did, I feel I'd have opened an issue against it many many months ago about it asking for it to be removed already.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Microsoft.OpenAPI is just a set of abstractions, so it does not have any dependencies.
Microsoft.OpenApi.Readers does not depend on STJ (or newtonsoft), but rather on sharpYAML

This is one of the improvements of the upcoming v2 which now makes me realize using a range was forgotten in the process.

Created an issue to address this before the GA microsoft/OpenAPI.NET#1930

Copy link
Contributor

@martincostello martincostello Nov 14, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My issue with this is that it allows you to review any breaking changes, but doesn't allow anyone else to.

This removes a lot of the value to the .NET teams (and yourselves) of customers using your libraries in their own applications and providing feedback over the course of the .NET 10 development lifecycle. If anyone finds an issue you don't find yourself, you won't find out about it until .NET 10 GA, at which point it's "too late".

My take is it's much better to not have the upper bound, and then let people take it for a spin themselves. If there are issues, you'll get bug reports and they can be resolved in advance of .NET 10 GA. If there aren't any issues, everyone's happy and there's nothing to do.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Otherwise, there's a very good chance I'll pop up in February 2025 with an issue saying I can't test any of my OpenAPI-consuming applications with .NET 10 previews and asking for a fix 😃

</ItemGroup>

</Project>
</Project>