Closed RReverser closed 2 weeks ago
Testing instructions (this one is a bit tricky to test because it only affects built NuGet package and can't be tested with folder references):
SpacetimeDB\crates\bindings-csharp\Codegen
in your terminal.dotnet pack
to create a NuGet package, this will be built in bin\Release
subfolder.bindings-csharp\Runtime
and run the same dotnet pack
.spacetime init --lang csharp <folder-name>
.StdbModule.csproj
.<PropertyGroup>
:
<RestoreSources>D:\SpacetimeDB\crates\bindings-csharp\Codegen\bin\Release;D:\SpacetimeDB\crates\bindings-csharp\Runtime\bin\Release</RestoreSources>
dotnet build
.It should build without errors - if it does, the NuGet packages are still packed correctly after this PR.
I think it would make sense to add that as a smoketest, I can do that on top of this branch if needed.
I think it would make sense to add that as a smoketest, I can do that on top of this branch if needed.
Sounds great if you could. Existing tests already cover any code changes, but yeah, we don't have anything in place for Nuget config changes specifically.
@RReverser done. I also made the smoketests run on windows, at least that one -- although you have to run them through Powershell, not Git Bash.
@kazimuth Added couple of nits. Also - does this new test run automatically on CI or is it for manual run only for now?
It should run automatically because CI installs dotnet sdk 8.0.
The issue you raised is patched, if in a slightly silly way.
E: never mind, I am going to fix it the way you suggested instead because it is less silly.
Okay done
It should run automatically because CI installs dotnet sdk 8.0.
Yeah I just wasn't sure if this test needs to be added explicitly to some list to run on CI. I checked the logs and see that it did run, so all good: https://github.com/clockworklabs/SpacetimeDB/actions/runs/8839614331/job/24273342965?pr=1143#step:5:1227
Wanted to approve the PR, but of course I can't because I created it 😅 Between the two of us, I think it should be good now, so added to the merge queue.
Thanks again for the test!
Description of Changes
Apparently custom scripts are no longer necessary, so removing to make maintenance simpler (noticed this while working on yet another source generator).
API and ABI breaking changes
If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the corresponding GitHub label.
Expected complexity level and risk
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex change.
1
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in the diff, but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR, and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning ways.
Testing
Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your reviewers to do, so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected!