search

Lombiq / .NET-Analyzers

.NET code analyzers and code convention settings for Lombiq projects.
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
10 stars 7 forks source link

OSOE-49: Enforce Windows newlines for C# files to avoid false positives with IDE0055 warning. #55

Closed sarahelsaig closed 2 years ago

sarahelsaig commented 2 years ago

OSOE-49

sarahelsaig commented 2 years ago

That wasn't my experience, that's why I have added it back. What do you mean by "current" exactly?

Piedone commented 2 years ago

>=6.0.202, see https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/23972

sarahelsaig commented 2 years ago

That explains it, I had "6.0.102" installed on my Linux desktop. But if we have a specific minimum version requirement within the same major version that really should be documented.

Piedone commented 2 years ago

I'd give us (me) a pass here, since it was a workaround for a .NET SDK bug they introduced with a patch version :D.

sarahelsaig commented 2 years ago

Anyway, we shouldn't remove the fix at least until May 22, because 6.0.200's lifecycle is still active.

Piedone commented 2 years ago

In principle I agree, I'd just really dread to re-add this workaround for these 9 days and have to keep in mind to remove it and retest everything.

sarahelsaig commented 2 years ago

Even after may 22, it's not like everyone will instantly and magically switch over to the latest SDK. Why are you so eager to break backwards compatibility? Does this fix have any serious drawbacks?

Piedone commented 2 years ago

Yeah, but we can still say we don't support older SDKs.

This is a risky workaround because it makes us use the compiler from NuGet instead of the SDK, which is unexpected and discouraged in the package Readme too. It's a hack that we shouldn't keep until absolutely necessary, hence me also jumping on removing it the first time this was possible.

sarahelsaig commented 2 years ago

Yeah, but we can still say we don't support older SDKs.

I suppose we can say that. (I'm not happy about it tho.) Yet the main problem is that we didn't say anything, which confused the person I least want to see confused: myself. :D Instead of deleting the code, I'm going to comment it out and add some text indicating that SDK versions prior to 6.0.102 have to uncomment it.

Piedone commented 2 years ago

I'm sorry :(. Sure! prior to 202, though.