[release/6.0] RevEng: Don't use nameof syntax (#26622) #27231
Merged
+48
−59
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
AndriySvyryd
approved these changes
Jan 20, 2022
Scoping causes clash in names. Resolves #26588
smitpatel
force-pushed
the
smit/nameof
branch
from
e3e8f56
to
f6c3fd9
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Scoping causes clash in names.
Resolves #26588
Description
Don't generate
nameofsyntax when generating attributes during scaffolding a database as it can cause clash with types/members.Customer impact
Customers scaffolding database where this can cause issue will run into code with compilation failure or invalid model created.
How found
Customers reported 6.0.
Regression
Yes. Use of
nameofsytanx was new feature in 6.0.Testing
There is existing testing for scenario. Fix here is reverting the feature added in 6.0
Risk
Low risk. The fix has been merged to main and this is cherry-pick of it. The generated code is same as what was in 5.0.