Adding spec of "consuming pdbs from packages in PackageReference" #11251
Conversation
|
cc @dsplaisted @wli3 |
|
Hi @wli3, @rainersigwald, may I get more reviews from .NET SDK side? Thanks! |
|
Hi @NuGet/nuget-client , may I get another review from our team? Thanks! |
Hi @heng-liu ! I think I may have been tagged accidentally here. Letting you know so you can tag whomever you meant to, take care! 🙂 |
Oops sorry! You're right. I meant to tag @rainersigwald Thanks for letting me know :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me but @dsplaisted's review counts double mine on this anyway.
|
|
||
| ## Problem Background | ||
|
|
||
| In the PackageReference world, the packages are consumed from the global-packages folder, .pdb, .xml files from lib and runtime folder are not copied into the build output folder. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PDB and XML documentation files are the most common related files, but RAR can find arbitrary related files. The list of possible extensions is user-configurable and the default is here: https://github.com/dotnet/msbuild/blob/2f1e9cad51097aec5d7268a4afdf7ad9bc6864b9/src/Tasks/Microsoft.Common.CurrentVersion.targets#L617-L627
It looks like the proposal covers this; the only thing is we'll have to be careful about "differs only by extension" to cover cases like .dll.config.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for reminding me for that!
So how about adding the following as additive description in the doc? (Haven't added yet)
The assembly extension .winmd, .dll and .exe will not be listed in "related" property. Any other extensions, like .dll.config, will be listed in "related" property.
|
|
||
| Cons: | ||
| * .pdb and .xml files are not on the same level as compile or runtime items. | ||
| The usage of .pdb and .xml files are SDK driven rather than package author driven. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does this mean? It seems like either way if the package author decides to include the files they'll be consumed by the SDK and present in the output the same way, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks!
If rephrasing it as the following, is it better? Or worse? :D
From the view of a package author, compile or runtime items are the essential elements. While .pdb and .xml files are not on the same level in the understanding. So the way of having related files as a property of compile and runtime items might be in line with the understanding.
Hi @nkolev92 , may I know if you have any other opinions about rephrasing this cons? Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think my confusion comes from this: if these files are present in the NuGet package, the package author had to choose to put them there (right?). So they clearly care about it and expect package consumers to use the files somehow.
|
Hi @clairernovotny , we plan to have this in .NET 7. May I know if you have any concerns? Thanks! |
|
Hi @zivkan, could you help take a look at it? Thanks! |
|
Please feel free to merge when you're comfortable with the reviews! Adding reviewers to help. |
|
I think this needs to be in the 6.0.200+ SDK, it cannot wait until .NET 7 as 6.x is LTS and more people will be using that for longer. |
|
Sorry for taking long to merge the PR. |
Adding spec of "consuming pdbs from packages in PackageReference"
The issue is #11350
(epic is #5926)