Add script for checking symbol availability

[JohnTortugo]

Closes: #1874

It was decided by e-mail that we would use dotnet symbol tool to check availability & completeness of symbols for packages.

The tool however doesn't accept a package for checking availability, only individual modules. The script in this PR opens packages and check for availability of symbols for each contained module using dotnet symbol tool.

This script is a temporary solution. Once the maintainer of dotnet symbol tool (@mikem8361) returns from vacation we'll work on improving the tool to accept a package as input for validation.

It was also agreed that for now symbol completeness will be done as part of symbol availability. Again, until dotnet symbol tool can be patched to do the right thing for completeness.

[dagood]

Any tests for this? I'd get a much better understanding of what's expected to work if there were some.

I'm also curious about using powershell and this being in eng/common. Is this just a normal design for pipeline things (which are also supposed to run in CI per an email thread)?

[jcagme]

Is the plan of creating this on eng/common to copy it the artifacts folder which then the release definition can access? I think, eventually, we need to start investigating how to change this model so repos don't get more things that are not useful for them. Maybe analyze what we talked about of cloning arcade and get everything from there... I think for now this location is fine, we can cleanup after the other work is implemented.

[jcagme]

LGTM after all @dagood's comments have been addressed

[tmat]

Is the plan of creating this on eng/common to copy it the artifacts folder which then the release definition can access? I think, eventually, we need to start investigating how to change this model so repos don't get more things that are not useful for them.

Yes, we definitely need to change this. I'd suggest we move all assets that are used in the publishing pipeline to a package. Perhaps to Arcade SDK package under directory Publishing or something like that.

[JohnTortugo]

Any tests for this? I'd get a much better understanding of what's expected to work if there were some.

I've done a bunch of tests. Here is an instance. The first stage runs the PS from this PR and finds a few modules are missing symbols. Second stage publish symbols for those packages. Third stage again runs the PS from this PR and now succeeded because the symbols were published.

[dagood]

That's good to see, I meant automated tests though.

[JohnTortugo]

Yes, we definitely need to change this. I'd suggest we move all assets that are used in the publishing pipeline to a package. Perhaps to Arcade SDK package under directory Publishing or something like that.

That's definitely going to happen. I just got other things on my plate. I think next week I should be able to get that work done.

[dagood]

Typo, "Dward"

But on that note, I think it would make more sense to reduce the scope of this script, maybe only check for PDB for the proof of concept:

• It's known not to be an effective check until we get https://github.com/dotnet/arcade/issues/2499
• The factoring is repetitive (removing all but one of the checks is one way to fix it 😄)

[JohnTortugo]

Would it be better to delete the current check?

[dagood]

Not sure what you're comparing against for "better"... my suggestion is to delete checks including this current one.

On the other hand, no need to block on this, it's already written and everything will naturally get fixed by being replaced by built-in checks either way.

[JohnTortugo]

I'd let to merge this by tomorrow. Is there anything else I should address?