-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.9k
Replace netstandard test project tfms with implementations #37972
Conversation
Why do this? We usually add SkipOnTargetFramework for netfx because the test will fail on netfx (i.e. a behavior or bug fix isn't present on .NET Framework). So, removing the SkipOnTargetFramework will cause the test to fail. Are we no longer running tests against .NET Framework at all? |
b91cacd
to
229e699
Compare
The top post should contain all the necessary information:
With this PR we are still running tests against netfx but only selectively for assemblies which we ship as a package. For more details see the linked issue. |
974a95c
to
cce075b
Compare
89d30b4
to
cfc07e0
Compare
da289a1
to
7f16cc2
Compare
This is now ready to go in, tested multiple times in CI, no related failures. I expect merge conflicts but would like to avoid them thus it would be great if somebody could review this 😊 I reviewed my changes myself couple of times, I'm confident that they are safe. |
7f16cc2
to
97d29c9
Compare
...omponentModel.Composition/tests/System/ComponentModel/Composition/CompositionErrorIdTests.cs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/System.IO.FileSystem.Watcher/tests/System.IO.FileSystem.Watcher.Tests.csproj
Show resolved
Hide resolved
</PropertyGroup> | ||
<PropertyGroup> | ||
<ProjectGuid>{4B4AA59B-89F9-4A34-B3C3-C97EF531EE00}</ProjectGuid> | ||
<IsInterpreting Condition="'$(TargetGroup)' == 'uapaot'">true</IsInterpreting> | ||
<IsInterpreting>false</IsInterpreting> | ||
<DefineConstants Condition=" '$(IsInterpreting)' != 'true' ">$(DefineConstants);FEATURE_COMPILE</DefineConstants> | ||
<DefineConstants Condition=" '$(FeatureInterpret)' == 'true' ">$(DefineConstants);FEATURE_INTERPRET</DefineConstants> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems like FeatureInterpret is uapaot feature? Maybe this can be removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes this can be removed but I left it there as it might be interesting for some Mono bring-up. Not a deal breaker atm.
@@ -2,8 +2,6 @@ | |||
<PropertyGroup> | |||
<BuildConfigurations> | |||
netcoreapp; | |||
netstandard; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No uap configuration?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll follow-up on this one.
src/System.Security.Cryptography.Pkcs/tests/System.Security.Cryptography.Pkcs.Tests.csproj
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall looks good to me (of course there are a lot of files so something could've slipped).
Left some comments, though
@safern thanks a lot for reviewing this! |
Merging as CI was "green" in the last round and to avoid conflicts again. |
Replace netstandard test project tfms with implementations Commit migrated from dotnet/corefx@30ca411
Replace netstandard test project tfms with implementations Commit migrated from dotnet/corefx@30ca411
Netstandard test projects are broken by design and don't support the
Microsoft.Net.Test.SDK. Replacing the netstandard tfm with the concrete
implementation tfms. This helps enabling project restore for test projects
and brings us closer to support VS Test Explorer. This is one of the goals outlined
in my infra spec that I sent around last week.
Fixes https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/35088
Changes (only in test projects):
NetFramework
SkipOnTargetFramework andIsFullFramework
conditions where we are not live-building or shipping netfx assets. I left some netfx comments in cases where context is helpful.@danmosemsft @safern I know this is a huge diff but the changes are very scoped. Do you think you could review the PR?
cc @ericstj