-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 204
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
Support dotnet core 2.0.0 versioned dependencies #34
Comments
josiahpeters
pushed a commit
to josiahpeters/apm-agent-dotnet
that referenced
this issue
Dec 25, 2018
Changed Elastic.Apm.AspNetCore project to target 2.0.0 dependencies.
Thanks @josiahpeters!
Yes, we should target the lowest possible version - which is currently not the case. Once your PR is merged this can be closed. |
gregkalapos
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 25, 2018
…sion Feature/gh 34 dependency version
Fixed by @josiahpeters in #35. Thank you! |
WeihanLi
pushed a commit
to WeihanLi/apm-agent-dotnet
that referenced
this issue
Oct 27, 2020
…ic#34) update BannerService with generic redisCache Approved-by: Yeoman Xu
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
While trying to pull in packages for ElasticApm that I built locally into a project I ran into some dependency issues.
Currently the libraries reference these versions:
Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions
Version2.1.1
Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions
Version2.0.2
Our IdentityServer4 impelementation currently references these dependency versions:
Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions
Version2.0.0
Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions
Version2.0.0
We created our project right after 2.0.0 came out and haven't gotten around to updating. (We can and should update.) I was able to tweak the version numbers manually and build a new package and get the application running. However, it made me wonder if it would be worth targeting those dependency versions as a decision to try and support 2.0.0 outright.
I'll submit a PR with the change and let you decide if it makes sense.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: