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

Rebuilding in VS causes unnecessary restores #13505

Closed
zivkan opened this issue Jun 1, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by NuGet/NuGet.Client#5836
Closed

Rebuilding in VS causes unnecessary restores #13505

zivkan opened this issue Jun 1, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by NuGet/NuGet.Client#5836
Assignees
Labels
Partner:Project-System Priority:1 High priority issues that must be resolved in the current sprint. Product:VS.Client Style:PackageReference Tenet:Performance Performance issues Type:Bug
Milestone

Comments

@zivkan
Copy link
Member

zivkan commented Jun 1, 2024

NuGet Product Used

Visual Studio Package Management UI

Product Version

VS internal preview

Worked before?

Before NuGet/NuGet.Client#5819

Impact

Other

Repro Steps & Context

Firstly, the regression required you use a version of VS with this dotnet/project-system change: dotnet/project-system#9470

Second, it might not have a user observable regression. It's a perf regression only. If it's observable, then the timestamp on the project.assets.json file in the obj folder will change, even if the contents do not.

But the repro steps are to open a solution with SDK style projects, and then "rebuild" (not just "build) the solution. In NuGet.Commands.dll's RestoreCommand.CommitAsync, it will think the assets file has changed, but it should not have.

Verbose Logs

No response

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Partner:Project-System Priority:1 High priority issues that must be resolved in the current sprint. Product:VS.Client Style:PackageReference Tenet:Performance Performance issues Type:Bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants