[release/10.0.2xx] Source code updates from dotnet/razor#3449
Conversation
…a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
…10.0.2xx-ca97e402-82f6-41cb-a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
…10.0.2xx-ca97e402-82f6-41cb-a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
|
Note PRs from original repository included in this codeflow update: 💡 You may consult the FAQ for more information or tag @dotnet/prodconsvcs for assistance. |
…10.0.2xx-ca97e402-82f6-41cb-a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
|
Note PRs from original repository included in this codeflow update:
💡 You may consult the FAQ for more information or tag @dotnet/prodconsvcs for assistance. |
…a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
…10.0.2xx-ca97e402-82f6-41cb-a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
|
Note PRs from original repository included in this codeflow update:
💡 You may consult the FAQ for more information or tag @dotnet/prodconsvcs for assistance. |
…a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
…10.0.2xx-ca97e402-82f6-41cb-a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
|
Note PRs from original repository included in this codeflow update: 💡 You may consult the FAQ for more information or tag @dotnet/prodconsvcs for assistance. |
|
@davidwengier: It looks like dotnet/razor@ded0f0e is the cause of this build break. |
…a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
…10.0.2xx-ca97e402-82f6-41cb-a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
|
Note PRs from original repository included in this codeflow update:
💡 You may consult the FAQ for more information or tag @dotnet/prodconsvcs for assistance. |
src/razor/src/Analyzers/Razor.Diagnostics.Analyzers/Razor.Diagnostics.Analyzers.csproj
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Why would you not be able to reference a version of M.CA higher than the build compiler? I definitely can see that restriction at runtime, but at build time it doesn't make much sense to me. |
|
The analyzer in question is one for developers working in our repo, not one we deploy to the general public of Razor users, so "runtime" in this case is "a build of Razor.slnx", hence, this build. What I can't explain is why stopping that analyzer building caused the introduction of other analyzer and compiler warnings that weren't present two days ago. I only took the analyzer out of the build because it seemed like having the pre-built was less desirable, based on comments above. |
…a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
|
Note PRs from original repository included in this codeflow update:
💡 You may consult the FAQ for more information or tag @dotnet/prodconsvcs for assistance. |
|
the build is green, can this be merged? |
|
Note PRs from original repository included in this codeflow update: 💡 You may consult the FAQ for more information or tag @dotnet/prodconsvcs for assistance. |
|
Note PRs from original repository included in this codeflow update:
💡 You may consult the FAQ for more information or tag @dotnet/prodconsvcs for assistance. |
…2f6-41cb-a6c6-4fecaf98a68b
|
Note PRs from original repository included in this codeflow update:
💡 You may consult the FAQ for more information or tag @dotnet/prodconsvcs for assistance. |
|
@mmitche @DustinCampbell this is green again but I don't understand if we want to merge |
|
|
No issues from me, I would love to merge this as I think (hope!) it unblocks some other things we have going on. @mmitche had concerns though, and definitely understands how things should work in the VMR better than me. I just threw spaghetti at the wall until the build went green :) |
|
Got it...so the project ref to the razor diag analyzers wouldn't affect any shipping assets out of razor? |
|
If that's the case, then I think I'm okay with this. |
This reverts commit ccc0ea7.
Note
This is a codeflow update. It may contain both source code changes from
the source repo
as well as dependency updates. Learn more here.
This pull request brings the following source code changes
From https://github.com/dotnet/razor
Diff the source with this PR branch