Target framework to net-standard 2.0 instead of "net6.0"

[hey24sheep]

In response to issue #45, Target framework ported from "net6.0" to "netstandard2.1"

[aloisdg]

Good job

[hey24sheep]

Thanks

[torendil]

As discussed in the issue, if we target .netstandard 2.1, we are leaving out all .net framework apps that cannot use .netstandard 2.1. I'm fine with it, but I feel like we are missing the plot in here if we do that ;)

Can you downgrade it to 2.0 so that the library becomes compatible with .net framework please? (still referencing https://docs.microsoft.com/fr-fr/dotnet/standard/net-standard)

[hey24sheep]

Hi, I didn't check the compatibility, sorry. I have downgraded it to 2.0.

Fixed this error on netstandard2.0 also. Let me know if any other changes are needed, thanks.

.

[torendil]

Oh, actually, I'm pretty much sure we need that default implementation for the logic of things.
@aloisdg, do you confirm? By the way, it seems that the tests in the runner are simply built but not ran?

If we actually need that default implementation, let's then keep it to .netstandard 2.1, it would be sad to pass on the opportunity to use modern features of the language.
@hey24sheep I'm sorry for all this back and forth, I don't mean to make you work for nothing :'(

[hey24sheep]

@torendil Hi, it's okay but I have a question

Oh, actually, I'm pretty much sure we need that default implementation for the logic of things.

Why? your abstract base implements a default implementation which is same as the interface for your abstract class and overriden implementation (with LuhnCheck) in aluhn class.

I don't mind changing it back, but I am curious if I am missing something here.

[torendil]

Why? your abstract base implements a default implementation which is same as the interface for your abstract class and overriden implementation (with LuhnCheck) in aluhn class.

I don't mind changing it back, but I am curious if I am missing something here.

No, it is just me forgetting the details :) It is actually ok, my bad :)

As .net framework is still very prevalent, I believe it is better to stick with 2.0 at the cost of a few features.

There is still the problem with the tests that don't run in this PR. Can you please try to run them locally @hey24sheep?

[thinkbeforecoding]

It is possible to have multiple platform in a single nuget.
So it would be possible to have a netstandard2.0 for compatibility with .Net framework, and net5.0/net6.0 to target most recent features.

[aloisdg]

Multi targeting is what we did on Cardizer. I guess we can go this road <TargetFrameworks>net5.0;net472</TargetFrameworks> in our case we will have <TargetFrameworks>net6.0;netstandard2_0</TargetFrameworks>

Here is what I have in mind

TargetFramework(s)	Library	Test
net6.0	✔️	✔️
netstandard2_0	✔️

AFAIK net5.0 should handle netstandard2_0

source and plural

[hey24sheep]

I have updated the target framework, test are running now. Do you want me to update the nuget packages as well?

[torendil]

I have updated the target framework, test are running now. Do you want me to update the nuget packages as well?

You can, I'm not sure it is required but you can.
Tell me what you want to do, depending on that we can merge

[hey24sheep]

It is not needed, but nuget update we can do as a separate issue because thats a separate thing. I don't want to break anything also :D

[torendil]

Nice

[aloisdg]

Why did the Tests project target netstandard2.0 again?

[hey24sheep]

Why did the Tests project target netstandard2.0 again?

You said to multi target in your above response. So I added a multi target.

[aloisdg]

We have a new error: #60