Following up on API baseline check and documentation #30221
Conversation
JunTaoLuo
force-pushed
the
johluo/baseline-docs-scripts
branch
from
64dcb23
to
a2f5107
Compare
JunTaoLuo
added
the
area-infrastructure
docs/APIBaselines.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| More information available in | ||
| - https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn-analyzers/blob/master/src/PublicApiAnalyzers/PublicApiAnalyzers.Help.md | ||
| - https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn-analyzers/blob/master/src/PublicApiAnalyzers/Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.PublicApiAnalyzers.md |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest adding a note to start at step (4) when making changes in projects with existing API baselines.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We probably need at least a note about the *REMOVED* prefix whether or not the fixer will handle that automatically. Doubt other syntax notes are interesting to most people.
Speaking of special cases 😺 @BrennanConroy did the fixer handle most / all of the PublicAPI.Unshipped.txt changes in #29219 without manual changes, aside from any [SuppressMessage(...)] attributes you needed❔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I gave up on the fixer and did it all manually
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, I remember the fixer doing a pretty good job even when fixing all instances of a problem in an entire (albeit filtered) solution. What went wrong e.g. is there an issue or three we should report in https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn-analyzers❔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seemed inconsistent about which file it edited, so I couldn't just blindly accept whatever changes it wanted to make.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, for example does it edit PublicAPI.Shipped.txt files rather than add *REMOVED* lines in PublicAPI.Unshipped.txt❔
@sharwell and @mavasani is that a known issue❔ Could the fixer be fixed to always leave PublicAPI.Shipped.txt alone❔ (Well, except if you add a gesture for use after a release -- where the files should be merged.)
Co-authored-by: Doug Bunting <6431421+dougbu@users.noreply.github.com>
Following up on feedback for #28253.