search

Azure / azure-functions-dotnet-worker

Azure Functions out-of-process .NET language worker
MIT License
408 stars 167 forks source link

The registration for method 'ConfigureFunctionsWebApplication' is expected for ASP.NET Core Integration.AZFW0014 #2578

Open jsquire opened 2 weeks ago

jsquire commented 2 weeks ago

Issue Transfer

This issue has been transferred from the Azure SDK for .NET repository, #44883.

Please be aware that @sivakarthick169 is the author of the original issue and include them for any questions or replies.

Details

Type of issue

Typo

Description

[Enter feedback here]

Page URL

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.azure.functions.worker.invocation?view=azure-dotnet

Content source URL

https://github.com/Azure/azure-docs-sdk-dotnet/blob/master/xml/ns-Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Invocation.xml

Document Version Independent Id

691ab652-227b-0805-78fb-65933f19dd73

Article author

@azure-sdk

Metadata

kshyju commented 2 weeks ago

@sivakarthick169 Could you please let us know which typo you noticed?

varkey98 commented 1 week ago

As per the guide here, I've been trying to create a built-in model azure function, but always getting the error on the tiltle during build. Is this variant completely discontinued? I'm creating the templates from vs code and using dotnet 8 to build on mac.

MisterRichards commented 1 week ago

In my case, I had a nuget reference for Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Extensions.Http.AspNetCore

I swapped that out for just a reference to: Microsoft.Azure.Functions.Worker.Extensions.Http

and this error went away. I was able to sort this out by comparing to THIS sample project:

https://github.com/Azure/azure-functions-dotnet-worker/tree/main/samples/FunctionApp

The upgrade paths on both Azure Function Apps and Azure SignalR is terrible (particularly for isolated model). You have my deepest sympathies.

varkey98 commented 1 week ago

Yeah, I raised a separate issue, got the answer there

mattchenderson commented 1 week ago

Hi - this error message definitely needs improvement and should cite the inclusion of the package itself. We'll also update docs to make this easier to uncover.

Would you be able to share a bit more about your intent to remove the ASP.NET Core integration feature (or perhaps, why you specifically wanted ConfigureFunctionsWorkerDefaults)? The main motivation we see for this is when using .NET Framework, and the package should not have been added to the template in that case.

varkey98 commented 1 week ago

I'm not writing the function itself, but a middleware for my vendor. And they can have functions of both types