Check for min runtime version at application start #2675

victorhurdugaci · 2015-09-10T21:47:55Z

The error shows up only on run
The error doesn't show up on build so you can build with an older runtime
No tests because this is super hard to test
Most of the change is passing IRuntimeEnvironment up the stack

davidfowl · 2015-09-10T23:48:44Z

src/Microsoft.Dnx.Runtime/ApplicationHostContext.cs

@@ -30,18 +30,20 @@ public class ApplicationHostContext

        public bool SkipLockfileValidation { get; set; }

+        public bool SkipRuntimeMinVersionCheck { get; set; }
+
        public FrameworkReferenceResolver FrameworkResolver { get; set; }


Add the RuntimeVersion to the ApplicationHostContext, so we don't have to flow this thing everywhere.

moozzyk · 2015-09-11T17:16:40Z

Is it possible to add tests?

victorhurdugaci · 2015-09-11T19:26:56Z

Updated with tests

troydai · 2015-09-11T22:40:16Z

src/Microsoft.Dnx.Runtime/ApplicationHostContext.cs

+                    // Ignore projects references because in that case we are compiling from sources 
+                    // and versions don't match
+                    if (lib.Type == LibraryTypes.Package &&
+                        lib.Identity.Name.Equals("Microsoft.Dnx.Runtime.Abstractions", StringComparison.Ordinal))


Can we extract the string Microsoft.Dnx.Runtime.Abstractions in way rather than hard code the string. For example reflecting a type name?

I'd avoid reflection since this is in the critical runtime path. But putting it in a constant is a good idea :)

I'm with @anurse on this one

Agreed, though if we make other name changes we'll have to catch this case as well.

analogrelay · 2015-09-11T22:58:19Z

Looking good. A few comments inline.

davidfowl · 2015-09-12T20:22:08Z

src/Microsoft.Dnx.Runtime/ApplicationHostContext.cs

+
+                if (abstractions != null)
+                {
+                    minRequiredRuntime = abstractions.Identity.Version.ToString();


Why are you turning this into a string and then back into a version?

davidfowl · 2015-09-12T20:25:17Z

After giving this some thought, I think this change should be here:

https://github.com/aspnet/dnx/blob/dev/src/Microsoft.Dnx.ApplicationHost/DefaultHost.cs#L172

It's only relevant at runtime, we're trying to protect people from themselves and since we only throw at runtime, why put it in ApplicationHostContext.

victorhurdugaci · 2015-09-14T17:17:11Z

src/Microsoft.Dnx.ApplicationHost/Microsoft.Dnx.ApplicationHost.xproj

@@ -13,5 +13,8 @@
  <PropertyGroup>
    <SchemaVersion>2.0</SchemaVersion>
  </PropertyGroup>
+  <PropertyGroup Condition="'$(Configuration)|$(Platform)'=='Debug|AnyCPU'">
+    <ProduceOutputsOnBuild>True</ProduceOutputsOnBuild>


whoops, forgot these. Will revert

victorhurdugaci · 2015-09-14T18:23:53Z

updated

analogrelay · 2015-09-14T19:19:09Z

src/Microsoft.Dnx.ApplicationHost/DefaultHost.cs

+                // because when building from sources the versions are not ordered
+                // correctly
+                if (lib.Type == LibraryTypes.Package &&
+                    string.Equals(lib.Identity.Name, "Microsoft.Dnx.Runtime.Abstractions", StringComparison.Ordinal) &&


Constantify, as discussed earlier ;)

maybe typeof(SomethingInThatAssembly).GetTypeInfo().Assembly.GetName().Name

will change now

analogrelay · 2015-09-14T19:19:39Z

LGTM

davidfowl · 2015-09-14T20:09:35Z

src/Microsoft.Dnx.ApplicationHost/DefaultHost.cs

@@ -183,6 +185,22 @@ private void Initialize(RuntimeOptions options, IServiceProvider hostServices, I
            AddBreadcrumbs(libraries);
        }

+        private void ValidateMinRuntimeVersion(IEnumerable<LibraryDescription> libraries)
+        {
+            foreach (var lib in libraries)


We can avoid the 2 for loops and do the servicing and this in a single pass but that's not important right now.

davidfowl · 2015-09-14T22:38:17Z

dnfclas added the cla-already-signed label Sep 10, 2015

davidfowl reviewed Sep 10, 2015
View reviewed changes

victorhurdugaci force-pushed the victorhu/min-version branch 3 times, most recently from eb4c9e0 to 5f4829d Compare September 11, 2015 19:26

victorhurdugaci force-pushed the victorhu/min-version branch from 5f4829d to f228654 Compare September 11, 2015 19:29

troydai reviewed Sep 11, 2015
View reviewed changes

davidfowl reviewed Sep 12, 2015
View reviewed changes

victorhurdugaci reviewed Sep 14, 2015
View reviewed changes

victorhurdugaci force-pushed the victorhu/min-version branch 2 times, most recently from d1cf461 to daf9993 Compare September 14, 2015 17:30

analogrelay reviewed Sep 14, 2015
View reviewed changes

davidfowl reviewed Sep 14, 2015
View reviewed changes

victorhurdugaci force-pushed the victorhu/min-version branch 2 times, most recently from b44bef2 to d7299b9 Compare September 15, 2015 17:51

Check for min runtime version at application startup

82b1501

victorhurdugaci force-pushed the victorhu/min-version branch from d7299b9 to 82b1501 Compare September 15, 2015 21:50

victorhurdugaci merged commit 82b1501 into dev Sep 15, 2015

victorhurdugaci deleted the victorhu/min-version branch September 15, 2015 22:32

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Check for min runtime version at application start #2675

Check for min runtime version at application start #2675

victorhurdugaci commented Sep 10, 2015

davidfowl Sep 10, 2015

moozzyk commented Sep 11, 2015

victorhurdugaci commented Sep 11, 2015

troydai Sep 11, 2015

analogrelay Sep 11, 2015

victorhurdugaci Sep 11, 2015

muratg Sep 14, 2015

analogrelay commented Sep 11, 2015

davidfowl Sep 12, 2015

davidfowl commented Sep 12, 2015

victorhurdugaci Sep 14, 2015

victorhurdugaci commented Sep 14, 2015

analogrelay Sep 14, 2015

davidfowl Sep 14, 2015

victorhurdugaci Sep 15, 2015

analogrelay commented Sep 14, 2015

davidfowl Sep 14, 2015

davidfowl commented Sep 14, 2015

Check for min runtime version at application start #2675

Check for min runtime version at application start #2675

Conversation

victorhurdugaci commented Sep 10, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

moozzyk commented Sep 11, 2015

victorhurdugaci commented Sep 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

analogrelay commented Sep 11, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidfowl commented Sep 12, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

victorhurdugaci commented Sep 14, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

analogrelay commented Sep 14, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidfowl commented Sep 14, 2015