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

Move us to SDK 2.2.0 preview #23494

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Dec 2, 2017
Merged

Move us to SDK 2.2.0 preview #23494

merged 10 commits into from
Dec 2, 2017

Conversation

jaredpar
Copy link
Member

This moves us to the SDK version 2.2.0-preview1-007622. This version has the feature which allows us to disable implicit transitive project references. This is necessary for us to build and previously we were accomplishing it via a hacky <Target> override.

When looking to see if we have the proper CLI installed for building
need to check the SDK dir, not the CLI directory. This ensures that when
we change SDK versions being used we download the appropriate SDK and
don't accidentally used the previous install.
Move to the officially supported method of disabling transitive project
references for VSIX files.
@jaredpar jaredpar requested a review from a team as a code owner November 30, 2017 19:10
@jaredpar
Copy link
Member Author

CC @dotnet/roslyn-infrastructure, @nguerrera

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ If a stack trace is displayed on .NET Framework older than 4.7.1 (e.g. by xUnit
1. [Visual Studio 2017 Update 3](https://www.visualstudio.com/vs/)
- Ensure C#, VB, MSBuild and Visual Studio Extensibility are included in the selected work loads
- Ensure Visual Studio is on Version "15.3" or greater
1. [.NET Core SDK 2.1](https://www.microsoft.com/net/download/core) (if you don't see the 2.1 SDK binaries there yet, the current previews are: [Windows x64 installer](https://dotnetcli.blob.core.windows.net/dotnet/Sdk/2.1.1-preview-007094/dotnet-sdk-2.1.1-preview-007094-win-x64.exe), [Windows x86 installer](https://dotnetcli.blob.core.windows.net/dotnet/Sdk/2.1.1-preview-007094/dotnet-sdk-2.1.1-preview-007094-win-x86.exe))
1. [.NET Core SDK 2.2](https://www.microsoft.com/net/download/core) (if you don't see the 2.1 SDK binaries there yet, the current previews are: [Windows x64 installer](https://dotnetcli.blob.core.windows.net/dotnet/Sdk/2.2.0-preview1-007622/dotnet-sdk-2.2.0-preview1-007622-win-x64.exe), [Windows x86 installer](https://dotnetcli.blob.core.windows.net/dotnet/Sdk/2.2.0-preview1-007622/dotnet-sdk-2.2.0-preview1-007622-win-x86.exe))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Still a "2.1" in there.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah good catch. Will fix.

Copy link
Member

@jasonmalinowski jasonmalinowski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Still one dangling '2.1'

The abscence of the 2.0.0 shared runtime seems to be the cause of our
CoreClr based suite failures. Hard coding the download of the runtime to
verify this is the case. Will work on a better fix after it's verified.
The .NET Core workload brings down the shared runtime component. That is
needed when our core clr tests are run.
@jaredpar
Copy link
Member Author

jaredpar commented Dec 1, 2017

CC @khyperia as I made some changes to obtain_dotnet.sh

Need to be on 15.4 in order for the .NET core workload to bring along
the 2.0.0 runtime.
@jaredpar
Copy link
Member Author

jaredpar commented Dec 1, 2017

@jasonmalinowski addressed your feedback.

@khyperia
Copy link
Contributor

khyperia commented Dec 1, 2017

CC @khyperia as I made some changes to obtain_dotnet.sh

Wait, did I forget to hit submit on this comment? Was going to say the changes to the shell script look good. Caching the download is possible, but then there's the headache of cleaning up the temp file, so it's up to you which you prefer (extra download, or manually managing a file)

@jaredpar
Copy link
Member Author

jaredpar commented Dec 1, 2017

retest windows_release_unit32_prtest please

@jaredpar jaredpar merged commit 78005e5 into dotnet:master Dec 2, 2017
@jaredpar jaredpar deleted the fix-dep branch December 2, 2017 03:08
@sharwell
Copy link
Member

sharwell commented Dec 3, 2017

This is necessary for us to build and previously we were accomplishing it via a hacky <Target> override.

Sounds like it was working before. :\ These changes are always a pain downstream.

@jaredpar
Copy link
Member Author

jaredpar commented Dec 3, 2017

Sounds like it was working before.

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

@sharwell
Copy link
Member

sharwell commented Dec 3, 2017

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

We were using a workaround which was clumsy of course but got the job done.

There may be other reasons why the new SDK is necessary, but I look at changes like this and just wish it could wait long enough until the SDK makes its way into a VS release so the separate install isn't necessary.

@jaredpar
Copy link
Member Author

jaredpar commented Dec 3, 2017

There may be other reasons why the new SDK is necessary, but I look at changes like this and just wish it could wait long enough until the SDK makes its way into a VS release so the separate install isn't necessary.

Feel like this is conflating issues. There are two things you mention here:

  1. The necessity of having a system wide SDK install which is separate from VS.
  2. Moving to a new version of the SDK.

As for (1) The repo has depended on a separate install of the SDK since before 15.3 released. This change doesn't impact that story, it only changes the version which we are using.

As for (2) the primary motivator is the ability to disable transitive references as a feature, not as a hack. There are other changes in flight which also depend on the 2.2 SDK.

@nguerrera
Copy link
Contributor

There are other changes in flight which also depend on the 2.2 SDK.

Yes, localization work depends on it and a sane process for getting a localized compiler in to the CLI depends on the localization work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants