Merge release/dev17.13 to main #11125
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Sadly, to get this far I had to opt cohosting into FUSE, which will have untold consequences
Previously this was using a boolean flag that I thought was the correct pivot point, but I was wrong, and it made things very confusing. This is much clearer, and more importantly, correct. Essentially if we are trying to format and we get passed a C# edit, then we can't force design time or it would be a different document than the original edit came from, if FUSE is on.
This was returning the passed in changes, which were for a C# document, when the formatting engine should be producing changes for the Razor document, so that was wrong. Additionally, the guard itself was wrong
Since this service was written, IDocumentSnapshot has been updated such that now, all implementations just passed true for a parameter that is part of the existing API
…11122) Fixes #11112 Hopefully fixes https://devdiv.visualstudio.com/DevDiv/_workitems/edit/2290299/ but I'm not sure, as whilst OnAutoInsert was definitely broken for me, it didn't cause that repro. It just sent telemetry for a fault and did nothing in the IDE. Fixes https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/Razor-editor-is-broken-in-1712-Preview-/10777527 ~but awaiting confirmation that FUSE is on for the user who reported the issue (@richardhauer I don't suppose that's you?)~ Fixes https://dev.azure.com/devdiv/DevDiv/_workitems/edit/2294069 Sadly, in order to get a working test for this, I had to enable FUSE in cohosting. I say sadly because whilst it proves the cohosting tests are awesome, it does potentially break us into jail a little bit. But only in cohosting, so it's a pretty small jail :) The changes aren't very exciting, as this is just #10967 but for more than code actions (and these changes probably should have been part of that PR originally 🤦♂️), but each commit has an explanation for why it's there so commit-at-a-time might be enlightening. I could not resist a little clean up, but what's one little deleted service between friends?
dotnet-bot
added
area-infrastructure
auto-merge
davidwengier
approved these changes
Oct 31, 2024
This was referenced Nov 7, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is an automatically generated pull request from release/dev17.13 into main.
Once all conflicts are resolved and all the tests pass, you are free to merge the pull request. 🐯
Troubleshooting conflicts
Identify authors of changes which introduced merge conflicts
Scroll to the bottom, then for each file containing conflicts copy its path into the following searches:
Usually the most recent change to a file between the two branches is considered to have introduced the conflicts, but sometimes it will be necessary to look for the conflicting lines and check the blame in each branch. Generally the author whose change introduced the conflicts should pull down this PR, fix the conflicts locally, then push up a commit resolving the conflicts.
Resolve merge conflicts using your local repo
Sometimes merge conflicts may be present on GitHub but merging locally will work without conflicts. This is due to differences between the merge algorithm used in local git versus the one used by GitHub.
git fetch --all git checkout -t upstream/merges/release/dev17.13-to-main git reset --hard upstream/main git merge upstream/release/dev17.13 # Fix merge conflicts git commit git push upstream merges/release/dev17.13-to-main --force