Skip to content
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

Threading.Tasks.DataFlow and ComponentModel.Annotations are not building NetCoreAppCurrent #48662

Closed
eerhardt opened this issue Feb 23, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #48667
Closed
Labels
area-Infrastructure-libraries good first issue Issue should be easy to implement, good for first-time contributors
Milestone

Comments

@eerhardt
Copy link
Member

These libraries are included in the shared framework, but we aren't building them for $(NetCoreAppCurrent).

<TargetFrameworks>netstandard2.0;netstandard1.0;netstandard1.1;net461</TargetFrameworks>

This causes the following problems:

  1. These libraries have <Nullable>enable</Nullable> in them, but they are building against netstandard APIs, which don't have nullablility annotations.
  2. When someone wants to use a new API (or new attributes, like DynamicDependency and UnconditionalSuppressMessage), they are not available.

We should add a $(NetCoreAppCurrent) target for these libraries, and ship that in the shared framework / runtimepack. I analyzed a recent shared framework, and these were the only 2 libraries (outside of System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe) that didn't target net6.0.

cc @LakshanF @joperezr @safern @ViktorHofer @ericstj

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Feb 23, 2021

Tagging subscribers to this area: @safern, @ViktorHofer
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

These libraries are included in the shared framework, but we aren't building them for $(NetCoreAppCurrent).

<TargetFrameworks>netstandard2.0;netstandard1.0;netstandard1.1;net461</TargetFrameworks>

This causes the following problems:

  1. These libraries have <Nullable>enable</Nullable> in them, but they are building against netstandard APIs, which don't have nullablility annotations.
  2. When someone wants to use a new API (or new attributes, like DynamicDependency and UnconditionalSuppressMessage), they are not available.

We should add a $(NetCoreAppCurrent) target for these libraries, and ship that in the shared framework / runtimepack. I analyzed a recent shared framework, and these were the only 2 libraries (outside of System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe) that didn't target net6.0.

cc @LakshanF @joperezr @safern @ViktorHofer @ericstj

Author: eerhardt
Assignees: -
Labels:

area-Infrastructure-libraries

Milestone: -

@dotnet-issue-labeler dotnet-issue-labeler bot added the untriaged New issue has not been triaged by the area owner label Feb 23, 2021
@ViktorHofer ViktorHofer removed the untriaged New issue has not been triaged by the area owner label Feb 23, 2021
@ViktorHofer ViktorHofer added this to the 6.0.0 milestone Feb 23, 2021
@ViktorHofer ViktorHofer added the good first issue Issue should be easy to implement, good for first-time contributors label Feb 23, 2021
@eerhardt
Copy link
Member Author

Just an FYI: I quickly tried doing this locally and System.ComponentModel.Annoations appears to be OK w.r.t. nullable annoations.

However, System.Threading.Tasks.DataFlow has a ~60 nullable annoation errors now that it compiles for NetCoreAppCurrent.

eerhardt added a commit to eerhardt/runtime that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2021
eerhardt added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2021
…CoreAppCurrent (#48667)

* Build Threading.Tasks.DataFlow and ComponentModel.Annotations for NetCoreAppCurrent

Fix #48662

* Fix the build to enable FEATURE_TRACING.
@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 28, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
area-Infrastructure-libraries good first issue Issue should be easy to implement, good for first-time contributors
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants