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

Stop making src modifications to every repo's NuGet.config #3170

Closed
Tracked by #3664
MichaelSimons opened this issue Dec 9, 2022 · 10 comments · Fixed by dotnet/installer#18478
Closed
Tracked by #3664

Stop making src modifications to every repo's NuGet.config #3170

MichaelSimons opened this issue Dec 9, 2022 · 10 comments · Fixed by dotnet/installer#18478
Assignees
Labels
area-infra Source-build infrastructure and reporting

Comments

@MichaelSimons
Copy link
Member

When building the VMR, there are several checked in files that are being modified. This yields a poor UX as these must be undone before you can build cleanly again. These edits will also become a nuisance in .NET 9 when the VMR can be used to checkin changes.

One type of file being modified is each repo's NuGet.config. The source-build sources are injected as the first feeds. If building offline, all other feeds are removed.

@dotnet-issue-labeler
Copy link

I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this issue. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member

It appears that we'd need a different set of feeds for online vs offline builds. In a related issue cloaking of repo-specific nuget.config files was suggested as part of the solution.

@MichaelSimons what are the current thoughts on available options, considering that some VMR plans might have changed in the meantime?

@MichaelSimons
Copy link
Member Author

It appears that we'd need a different set of feeds for online vs offline builds. In a #2838 cloaking of repo-specific nuget.config files was suggested as part of the solution.

@MichaelSimons what are the current thoughts on available options, considering that some VMR plans might have changed in the meantime?

Cloaking the repo-specific nuget.config files works when there are no prebuilts. Even though we have eliminated prebuilts for the most part, there are some scenarios when they still occur. For example, a developer would like to do some cross cutting feature work in the VMR. If you remove the nuget.configs it would hurt the VMR UX as the build would stop on the first prebuilt. I personally see this as a blocker for this approach. Maybe others have different opinions.

Another approach mentioned in the past is to perform the NuGet.config manipulation during/within the inner clone. I don't think this is a viable option either given our long term plan of removing the inner clone within the VMR.

An ideal solution to me would permit dynamically modifying/swapping out the nuget configuration. Are there any msbuild or nuget control that can be utilized for this?

@mthalman
Copy link
Member

mthalman commented Nov 8, 2023

I think what we might need here is the RestoreSources MSBuild property. I've never used it before, but it seems like that's a way to dynamically provide the feed locations we want to use for the build.

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member

An ideal solution to me would permit dynamically modifying/swapping out the nuget configuration. Are there any msbuild or nuget control that can be utilized for this?

This would be the best - I'll investigate what's possible.

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member

I think what we might need here is the RestoreSources MSBuild property. I've never used it before, but it seems like that's a way to dynamically provide the feed locations we want to use for the build.

Thanks - this looks promising. There are few more related properties that could be useful as well.

@ViktorHofer
Copy link
Member

I think what we might need here is the RestoreSources MSBuild property. I've never used it before, but it seems like that's a way to dynamically provide the feed locations we want to use for the build.

Note that RestoreSources doesn't support authentication but I guess we don't need this here as we just point to a local folder?

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member

I think we should be able to use RestoreConfigFile MSBuild propery. A quick test with a small .NET project showed that this works as expected. I'm going to test it in source-build next.

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member

@MichaelSimons this is the place where we document multiple possible NuGet.config files: https://github.com/dotnet/installer/blob/3479076aac5f65a37f98c860659006ac45495ad1/src/SourceBuild/content/repo-projects/Directory.Build.targets#L59-L62

    <!-- Update the detected or manually specified NuGetConfigFile, but also allow multiple. -->
    <ItemGroup>
      <NuGetConfigFiles Include="$(NuGetConfigFile)" />
    </ItemGroup>

We do process them all in various tasks, in the same target.

I do not see this used in source-build infra. If we got rid of this, it would simplify the changes I'm making, but also simplify existing infra.

The only other place where we reference NuGet.config files is here, and it is only using the single instance: https://github.com/dotnet/installer/blob/3479076aac5f65a37f98c860659006ac45495ad1/src/SourceBuild/content/repo-projects/source-build-reference-packages.proj#L22

      NuGetConfigFile="$(NuGetConfigFile)"

@NikolaMilosavljevic
Copy link
Member

Unfortunately, RestoreConfigFile property cannot work for projects that use different SDKs, i.e. Microsoft.Build.NoTargets or Microsoft.Build.Traversal.

MSBuild needs to restore the SDK before evaluating properties. It uses Microsoft.Buid.NuGetSdkResolver APIs, which only support default nuget.config probing paths. There is an issue tracking support of alternate nuget.config content: NuGet/Home#7855

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area-infra Source-build infrastructure and reporting
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants