Add bulk operations to Collection<T> #1175
Conversation
terrajobst
force-pushed
the
observable-bulk
branch
from
9aa9ee9
to
e5748ef
Compare
|
This looks great! Thanks for getting this done so quickly after we wrapped up the corefx PR |
| public bool Remove(T item) { throw null; } | ||
| public void RemoveAt(int index) { } | ||
| protected virtual void RemoveItem(int index) { } | ||
| protected virtual void RemoveItemsRange(int index, int count) { } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reason why this and APIs bellow don't use Range type?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because this API was approved 3 years ago but only recently implemented. Not sure it's worth going back to changing the design. We can always add new overloads.
|
@joshpeterson @jaredpar ...while you're at it... :-) |
This fixes dotnet#1091.
terrajobst
force-pushed
the
observable-bulk
branch
from
e5748ef
to
4aa3cc2
Compare
| @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ | |||
| Compat issues with assembly System.ComponentModel.TypeConverter: | |||
| CannotSealType : Type 'System.ComponentModel.BaseNumberConverter' is effectively (has a private constructor) sealed in the implementation but not sealed in the contract. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Anipik added better checks to catch the exact case that resulted in this bug.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does this baseline file indicate BTW? netstandard 1.6 didn't have BaseNumberConverter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or rather, we had a package that was applicable on netstandard1.6 and that package was absorbed into netstandard2.0.
This is telling you that you made BaseNumberConverter effectively sealed when compared to the previous version from the package. That's intentional, as you mentioned.
Closer i look this isn't actually a new check, probably this just missed being checked in with #1176 and didn't fail CI.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@wtgodbe I don't understand exactly why this wouldn't have failed CI. Maybe you're auto-baselining. That's fine to do for local builds, but maybe you should turn it off on CI.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gotcha, so these changes are expected and we just didn't baseline those before.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ericstj good idea - this should be a quick fix, I'll whip something up now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might not have time today, I'll circle back tomorrow morning - #1184
|
I'm merging because CI is down. I verified that it builds though :-) |
|
Hello. How can we use these bulk operations in .NET Standard 2.1? I didn't see such APIs exist in .NET Standard 2.1 |
|
We had to revert this addition. See: #1222 |
|
Pity... Will it be added in the future? |
These APIs were recently merged into CoreFx.
This fixes #1091.