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

Configuration changes in 2.0 #3387

Closed
tdykstra opened this Issue May 19, 2017 · 11 comments

Comments

5 participants
@tdykstra
Contributor

tdykstra commented May 19, 2017

Affects fundamentals/configuration.md and others.
Document Options 2.0 changes #3469

@tdykstra tdykstra added this to the 2017-2.0 RTW milestone May 19, 2017

@tdykstra tdykstra added this to backlog in 2.0 scenarios May 19, 2017

@tdykstra tdykstra moved this from Backlog - key scenarios to Backlog - features (low pri) in 2.0 scenarios Jun 16, 2017

@tdykstra tdykstra moved this from Backlog - features (low pri) to Backlog - key scenarios in 2.0 scenarios Jun 16, 2017

@tdykstra tdykstra moved this from Backlog - key scenarios to Backlog - features (low pri) in 2.0 scenarios Jun 16, 2017

@Rick-Anderson Rick-Anderson added the 2.0 label Jun 22, 2017

@Rick-Anderson Rick-Anderson added the P1 label Jul 12, 2017

@scottaddie scottaddie moved this from Backlog to Next up in 2.0 scenarios Aug 4, 2017

@scottaddie scottaddie moved this from Next up to Working in 2.0 scenarios Aug 15, 2017

@scottaddie scottaddie assigned rachelappel and unassigned scottaddie Aug 24, 2017

@scottaddie scottaddie moved this from Working to Next up in 2.0 scenarios Aug 24, 2017

@guardrex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@guardrex

guardrex Sep 5, 2017

Collaborator

@rachelappel There's a question that's come up while I was working these config samps. Not working this topic; just updating the samps to 2.0 on PRs: #4197, #4198, #4199, #4200, #4201, #4205, #4206, #4207 (all to address getting rid of dnxcore50 on #1950) ... and three upcoming PRs on Tue 9/5 (no dnxcore50, but I may as well ... I'm on a roll! 😄). One sample, IOptionsSnapshot2 is outside of the src folder. Not sure why that was placed there, but it's also unclear if you want to move all of the samps out of src and into the sample folder. I'll (quickly) get the samps updated, then get out of your way here.

capture10

[Dots indicate orphaned samps that are slated for obliteration.]

Collaborator

guardrex commented Sep 5, 2017

@rachelappel There's a question that's come up while I was working these config samps. Not working this topic; just updating the samps to 2.0 on PRs: #4197, #4198, #4199, #4200, #4201, #4205, #4206, #4207 (all to address getting rid of dnxcore50 on #1950) ... and three upcoming PRs on Tue 9/5 (no dnxcore50, but I may as well ... I'm on a roll! 😄). One sample, IOptionsSnapshot2 is outside of the src folder. Not sure why that was placed there, but it's also unclear if you want to move all of the samps out of src and into the sample folder. I'll (quickly) get the samps updated, then get out of your way here.

capture10

[Dots indicate orphaned samps that are slated for obliteration.]

@scottaddie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@scottaddie

scottaddie Sep 5, 2017

Member

@guardrex @rachelappel I recommend moving all the sample code under "sample" and deleting the "src" folder. The "src" folder was used in VS 2015 project templates. Since it isn't used in the VS 2017 project templates, it's probably best to move away from it.

Member

scottaddie commented Sep 5, 2017

@guardrex @rachelappel I recommend moving all the sample code under "sample" and deleting the "src" folder. The "src" folder was used in VS 2015 project templates. Since it isn't used in the VS 2017 project templates, it's probably best to move away from it.

@guardrex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@guardrex

guardrex Sep 5, 2017

Collaborator

Very good. There was one other one in my batch for #1950 that had has an (unnecessary) src+test folder layout. IIRC the test projects are well-named, so they can sit in the sample folder next to the project folder. I've made a note here to circle back around to it.

This batch is a little different in that the src folder holds completely separate projects ... not test vs. app ... so yeah ... it makes very little sense here at all, even under VS2015.

I'll take care of the other one, but I'll leave these Configuration projects in the src to be worked on this PR.

There are three here that need upgrade to 2.0, and I'll get them today right after I get back from the 💪 gym and a quick 🚴 bike ride.

Collaborator

guardrex commented Sep 5, 2017

Very good. There was one other one in my batch for #1950 that had has an (unnecessary) src+test folder layout. IIRC the test projects are well-named, so they can sit in the sample folder next to the project folder. I've made a note here to circle back around to it.

This batch is a little different in that the src folder holds completely separate projects ... not test vs. app ... so yeah ... it makes very little sense here at all, even under VS2015.

I'll take care of the other one, but I'll leave these Configuration projects in the src to be worked on this PR.

There are three here that need upgrade to 2.0, and I'll get them today right after I get back from the 💪 gym and a quick 🚴 bike ride.

@guardrex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@guardrex

guardrex Sep 13, 2017

Collaborator

Cross-ref: aspnet/Configuration#728

... but it isn't 100% clear if this is the tracking topic for ALL configuration topic updates for 2.0 (e.g., ConfigureAppConfiguraton).

Collaborator

guardrex commented Sep 13, 2017

Cross-ref: aspnet/Configuration#728

... but it isn't 100% clear if this is the tracking topic for ALL configuration topic updates for 2.0 (e.g., ConfigureAppConfiguraton).

@scottaddie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@scottaddie

scottaddie Sep 13, 2017

Member

@guardrex I'll be adding a small section to the existing migration doc to outline ONLY major breaking changes. (see issue #4277). This issue should remain open, and the resulting doc should serve as a much more detailed reference.

Member

scottaddie commented Sep 13, 2017

@guardrex I'll be adding a small section to the existing migration doc to outline ONLY major breaking changes. (see issue #4277). This issue should remain open, and the resulting doc should serve as a much more detailed reference.

@rachelappel rachelappel moved this from Next up to Backlog in 2.0 scenarios Sep 13, 2017

@guardrex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@guardrex

guardrex Sep 14, 2017

Collaborator

@rachelappel I'm looking at #1382 and wondering if you think I have time to sneak a quick-ish (24-48 hours) PR in there to cover that before you go to work on this issue?

Collaborator

guardrex commented Sep 14, 2017

@rachelappel I'm looking at #1382 and wondering if you think I have time to sneak a quick-ish (24-48 hours) PR in there to cover that before you go to work on this issue?

@rachelappel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rachelappel

rachelappel Sep 14, 2017

Contributor

@guardrex Yep. I am working on another issue at the moment and have a second one I can bump up in the queue in the meantime so no problem there.

Contributor

rachelappel commented Sep 14, 2017

@guardrex Yep. I am working on another issue at the moment and have a second one I can bump up in the queue in the meantime so no problem there.

@guardrex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@guardrex

guardrex Sep 14, 2017

Collaborator

@scottaddie Ok with you? ... kills two 🐦 🐦 ... that issue and wraps up #2409. Be nice if [@]Rick-Anderson comes back to fewer issues than he left (if that's possible lol).

Collaborator

guardrex commented Sep 14, 2017

@scottaddie Ok with you? ... kills two 🐦 🐦 ... that issue and wraps up #2409. Be nice if [@]Rick-Anderson comes back to fewer issues than he left (if that's possible lol).

@scottaddie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@scottaddie

scottaddie Sep 14, 2017

Member

@guardrex Sounds good to me!

Member

scottaddie commented Sep 14, 2017

@guardrex Sounds good to me!

@rachelappel rachelappel moved this from Backlog to Next up in 2.0 scenarios Sep 20, 2017

@guardrex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@guardrex

guardrex Sep 21, 2017

Collaborator

@rachelappel Update on #4307 The work is done ... just waiting on review. I'll jump on feedback asap to get out of your way here.

Collaborator

guardrex commented Sep 21, 2017

@rachelappel Update on #4307 The work is done ... just waiting on review. I'll jump on feedback asap to get out of your way here.

@rachelappel rachelappel removed their assignment Sep 27, 2017

@guardrex

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@guardrex

guardrex Sep 30, 2017

Collaborator

@Rick-Anderson Since options are part of the config topic and probably will be addressed at the same time, should #3469 be closed and tracking that work be done over here?

Collaborator

guardrex commented Sep 30, 2017

@Rick-Anderson Since options are part of the config topic and probably will be addressed at the same time, should #3469 be closed and tracking that work be done over here?

@Rick-Anderson Rick-Anderson moved this from Next up to Done in 2.0 scenarios Nov 7, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment