Extract TFM for DLLs shipped from this repo #4903
Conversation
| @@ -3,7 +3,12 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| <PropertyGroup> | |||
| <!-- OmniSharp/VS Code requires TargetFrameworks to be in descending order for IntelliSense and analysis. --> | |||
| <DefaultTargetFrameworks>net6.0;netstandard2.0;net462</DefaultTargetFrameworks> | |||
| <TargetFrameworksForLibraries>net6.0;netstandard2.0;net462</TargetFrameworksForLibraries> | |||
| <TargetFrameworksForLibrariesExtended>net6.0;netstandard2.1;netstandard2.0;net462</TargetFrameworksForLibrariesExtended> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
curious - what's the rationale behind this naming? (I saw it's used for OTLP exporter and OpenTelemetry project.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a name for libs that need to target extra netstandard TFM.
My hope is that after this PR:
- All the TFMs are centrally managed in this single file. It'll help us to manage / review TFMs in the future (e.g. when we add net8 or retire net7), and stop bleeding as new libs being added.
- We will do the same for tests/examples.
- We will keep reducing the number of different targets, ideally I hope that we end up with 3 combinations: TargetFrameworksForLibraries, TargetFrameworksForTests, TargetFrameworksForExamples
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Possible to do this here...
<TargetFrameworksForLibrariesExtended>$(TargetFrameworksForLibraries);netstandard2.1</TargetFrameworksForLibrariesExtended>
...or order needs to be preserved?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel inheritance is not adding much value, and is creating issue for IDEs/tools.
Ultimately we should try to align all the TFMs by reducing the number of variations IMHO.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4903 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.94% 83.16% +0.22%
==========================================
Files 294 294
Lines 12200 12200
==========================================
+ Hits 10119 10146 +27
+ Misses 2081 2054 -27
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
| @@ -3,7 +3,12 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| <PropertyGroup> | |||
| <!-- OmniSharp/VS Code requires TargetFrameworks to be in descending order for IntelliSense and analysis. --> | |||
| <DefaultTargetFrameworks>net6.0;netstandard2.0;net462</DefaultTargetFrameworks> | |||
| <TargetFrameworksForLibraries>net6.0;netstandard2.0;net462</TargetFrameworksForLibraries> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since everything in prod.props is a Library anyway, we could use diff. name by avoiding "library"...
DefaultTargetFrameworks, DefaultTargetFrameworksExtended seems okay to me plus the
TargetFrameworksForAspNetCoreInstrumentation, etc..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel the word "default" is generating confusion. The way I look at it is that:
- There is no "default", all of them are explcit.
- Having "TargetFrameworksForXyz" makes it more consistent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you look at what I was doing in #4902, I consider this as "default" (the individual projects don't have to add TargetFrameworks at all since the props file covered it).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with @cijothomas I don't love "Libraries" in the name because all of these things are really libraries in some regard but I'm fine to leave as-is and we can continue to mess with it 😄
No description provided.