Skip to content
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

Change Name of DACPAC Output #65

Closed
brettrowberry opened this issue Sep 29, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #66
Closed

Change Name of DACPAC Output #65

brettrowberry opened this issue Sep 29, 2020 · 3 comments · Fixed by #66

Comments

@brettrowberry
Copy link
Contributor

brettrowberry commented Sep 29, 2020

In my .csproj, <TargetDatabaseName>DBName</TargetDatabaseName> determines what my database will be called when I run dotnet publish. It doesn't influence what the the dacpac file is named when I run dotnet build. How can I change the name of the dacpac?

@jmezach
Copy link
Member

jmezach commented Sep 29, 2020

From what I've heard from @RVink you should be able to set AssemblyName in the project file and that will override the name of the resulting .dacpac. I do realise that this is a bit confusing, so perhaps we should have a separate property for it instead.

By default though, we use the name of the project file as the name of the .dacpac so you can also try renaming your project file to whatever you want the .dacpac to be named.

@brettrowberry
Copy link
Contributor Author

brettrowberry commented Sep 29, 2020

I was aware that the project name determines the name of the .dacpac. The AssemblyName in the project file worked! I will send a PR for the README to explain this. Thanks!

@RVink
Copy link
Member

RVink commented Sep 30, 2020

It's indeed possible to change the output name by setting the AssemblyName in the project file. However it breaks the dotnet publish command.
I created #68 for this issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants