Skip to content

Update previous netcoreapp version to run API Compat against 6.0 ref pack - #61437

Merged
safern merged 2 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
safern:ApiCompat6.0RefPack
Dec 4, 2021
Merged

Update previous netcoreapp version to run API Compat against 6.0 ref pack#61437
safern merged 2 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
safern:ApiCompat6.0RefPack

Conversation

@safern

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

We are still running API Compat for the ref pack against the 5.0 ref pack rather than the 6.0 one on main. Now that the 6.0 is released we can do that.

@ghost

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Tagging subscribers to this area: @Anipik, @safern, @ViktorHofer
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

We are still running API Compat for the ref pack against the 5.0 ref pack rather than the 6.0 one on main. Now that the 6.0 is released we can do that.

Author:safern
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-Infrastructure-libraries

Milestone:-

@safern

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

It seems like we are hitting some package validation now that the baseline versions changed. I will look into them and see why.

Comment threadsrc/libraries/System.Data.Odbc/src/CompatibilitySuppressions.xml Outdated

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I need to check these runtime net6.0 assets vs lib assets.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, so I was able to figure these out. The package doesn't have a ref folder, and this is comparing runtimes/* as the contract, VS the ridless lib (the compile asset), and it seems like the ref is not exposing these APIs. It seems like that is by design. As we even have this: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/libraries/System.Data.Odbc/src/MatchingRefApiCompatBaseline.txt

@safern
safern requested review from joperezr and removed request for AnipikNovember 20, 2021 00:27

@ericstjericstj left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A couple look like real failures due to TFMs being removed.

Do we have a way to suppress the removed TFMs and avoid any member-specific noise about them, while still getting coverage for newer TFMs?

Comment threadsrc/libraries/System.Drawing.Common/src/CompatibilitySuppressions.xml Outdated
@safern

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Do we have a way to suppress the removed TFMs and avoid any member-specific noise about them, while still getting coverage for newer TFMs?

Not yet, this is what I was mentioning here: #61437 (comment)

We need a way to specify tmfs to ignore via an item or something like that.

@safern

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

@ericstj I've replied to your feedback, could you take another look to get this unblocked?

Comment threadsrc/libraries/System.Windows.Extensions/src/CompatibilitySuppressions.xml Outdated

@joperezrjoperezr left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes look good in general. It would be good to investigate those new ODBC ones as I wouldn't expect those either. Also, a NIT, but it might be worth adding a comment on all of the suppressions that are expected due to a drop of a TFM from the current package, that is what we did before 6.0 shipped so we should probably do that as well in this PR.

@ericstjericstj left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So long as we're certain those suppressions aren't real issues that will be hit for supported frameworks I'm OK with this.

@safern
safernforce-pushed the ApiCompat6.0RefPack branch from 1354b39 to 099c709CompareDecember 3, 2021 20:56
@safern

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

I've validated the diffs and they all make sense.

@safern
safern merged commit f754496 into dotnet:mainDec 4, 2021
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 3, 2022
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@safern@ericstj@joperezr