-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.2k
Obsolete PrincipalPermissionAttribute ctor as error #37536
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ | ||
List of Obsoletions | ||
================== | ||
|
||
Per https://github.com/dotnet/designs/blob/master/accepted/2020/better-obsoletion/better-obsoletion.md, we now have a strategy in place for marking existing APIs as `[Obsolete]`. This takes advantage of the new diagnostic id and URL template mechanisms introduced to `ObsoleteAttribute` in .NET 5. | ||
|
||
When obsoleting an API, use the diagnostic ID `MSLIB####`, where _\#\#\#\#_ is the next four-digit identifier in the sequence, and add it to the list below. This helps us maintain a centralized location of all APIs that were obsoleted using this mechanism. | ||
|
||
The URL template we use for obsoletions is `https://aka.ms/dotnet-warnings/{0}`. | ||
|
||
Currently the identifiers `MSLIB0001` through `MSLIB0999` are carved out for obsoletions. If we wish to introduce analyzer warnings not related to obsoletion in the future, we should begin at a different range, such as `MSLIB2000`. | ||
|
||
## Current obsoletions (`MSLIB0001` - `MSLIB0999`) | ||
|
||
| Diagnostic ID | Description | | ||
| :--------------- | :---------- | | ||
| __`MSLIB0001`__ | (Reserved for `Encoding.UTF7`.) | | ||
| __`MSLIB0002`__ | `PrincipalPermissionAttribute` is not honored by the runtime and must not be used. | |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion
4
src/libraries/System.Security.Permissions/ref/System.Security.Permissions.csproj
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since existing binaries will continue to work, seems valuable to continue to validate the behavior. Do we not have any way to write the test given the error obsoletion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could put a test binary in the test data repo (where we put compression test data)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These methods quite literally no-op. If you attempt to use them for real you'll get a
NullReferenceException
. IMO this test (and the tests forFileIOPermissionAttribute
, etc.) isn't testing anything useful.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If there's really a desire to keep this test, we could always
Activator.CreateInstance
it, since that won't produce the build error. But again, since the implementations are no-ops, I'm not sure what utility such a test has.I'll defer to your collective judgment if you feel that such a test is useful. :)