Skip to content

Conversation

safern
Copy link
Member

@safern safern commented Jan 8, 2022

Fixes: #62840

Customer Impact

With the current file version approach, every servicing release we produce of the ref assembly pack will cause System.Runtime.dll to have a higher file version than the one we ship in System.Runtime.Experimental package, causing assembly conflict resolution to prefer the ref assembly that ships inbox as part of the targeting pack, causing compile errors to users when upgrade to a new SDK like:

error CS0246: The type or namespace name 'IComparisonOperators<,>' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?

By upgrading the min version of the file version we ensure that it is always greater as now the file version for the experimental one will be 6.100.x.x vs the one inbox will be 6.0.x.x

Testing

I tested with the sample repro by referencing a new package produced locally with the fix and the compiler errors go away. Also visually validated via a binlog that the right System.Runtime.dll is chosen as a reference when compiling.

Risk

Low, we are just changing the assembly file version scheme to make sure it is always greater for the current SDK band.

@safern safern added the Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review label Jan 8, 2022
@safern safern added this to the 6.0.x milestone Jan 8, 2022
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 8, 2022

I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this PR. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

@ghost ghost assigned safern Jan 8, 2022
@safern
Copy link
Member Author

safern commented Jan 10, 2022

Failures are linked and known. Change approved offline.

@safern safern merged commit 749c02b into release/6.0 Jan 10, 2022
@safern safern deleted the FixSystemRuntimeExperimentalFileVersion branch January 10, 2022 17:11
@safern safern added Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release and removed Servicing-consider Issue for next servicing release review labels Jan 10, 2022
Copy link
Member

@ericstj ericstj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks for picking this up, @safern

@safern safern modified the milestone: 6.0.x Jan 10, 2022
@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 9, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

Servicing-approved Approved for servicing release

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants