Skip to content
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

.Net 4.5 References #601

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 21, 2018
Merged

Conversation

felipeleusin
Copy link
Contributor

@felipeleusin felipeleusin commented Oct 27, 2017

We don't need to reference the System.Net.Http package on .Net 4.5+ since it's provided by the framework.

I also update the targetFramework monikers to match the new ones at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/schema/target-frameworks

@thinkingserious thinkingserious added the status: code review request requesting a community code review or review from Twilio label Oct 27, 2017
@SendGridDX
Copy link

SendGridDX commented Oct 27, 2017

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@thinkingserious
Copy link
Contributor

@felipeleusin

We have not been able to merge your Pull Request, but because you are awesome - we wanted to make sure you could still get a SendGrid Hacktoberfest shirt.

Please go fill out our swag form before Nov 5th and we will send the shirt! (We know that you might have tried this before and it didn’t work, sorry about that!)

You have till Nov 5th to fill out this form in order to get the Hacktoberfest shirt!

Thank you for contributing during Hacktoberfest! We hope to see you in the repos soon! Just so you know, we always give away a SendGrid shirt for your first ever non-Hacktoberfest PR that gets merged.

@thinkingserious thinkingserious added type: community enhancement feature request not on Twilio's roadmap difficulty: easy fix is easy in difficulty labels Mar 5, 2018
@bmeredith
Copy link

Would be great to see this merged in as we have been running into issues with System.Net.Http getting pulled in versus using the framework's assembly (we're running on .net 4.5+).

@thinkingserious
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the additional feedback @bmeredith, your vote helps move this up our backlog queue.

@fpmess
Copy link

fpmess commented Mar 28, 2018

I'll second @bmeredith 's comment. Would be awesome if this was merged. We are running into a similar situation. Thanks!

@thinkingserious
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @fpmess!

@nboettcher
Copy link

I am running into the same issue as others posted, as well. Our app is .NET 4.5+.

@felipeleusin
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi. Is there any update on this? Just got bit by this again in. Is a simple update and a minor release

@thinkingserious
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the additional vote @felipeleusin, this issue is still rising up our backlog and your vote helps that process move quicker. Thanks!

@felipeleusin
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi, any update on this? I can update this PR to target .Net Standart 2.0 if you need. Just saw this discussion:
https://twitter.com/terrajobst/status/997262020108926976 and remebered that this issue is still open

@thinkingserious
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @felipeleusin,

This is still on our backlog waiting to bubble up. Unfortunately, I have quite a long list of issues before this one :(

I'm not sure if we want/need to update to .NET Standard 2.0 since 1.3 gives us broader support and we don't have any 2.0 specific functionality in this SDK.

With Best Regards,

Elmer

@xt0rted
Copy link
Contributor

xt0rted commented May 21, 2018

I'm not sure if we want/need to update to .NET Standard 2.0 since 1.3 gives us broader support and we don't have any 2.0 specific functionality in this SDK.

I think the idea is if you target both netstandard1.3 and netstandard2.0 then projects targeting .net core 2.0+ or full 4.6.1+ will have a simpler set of dependencies added. You can continue to use the .net standard 1.3 api, but I'm pretty sure targeting both versions will reduce the number of dependencies for newer versions of the framework.

@felipeleusin
Copy link
Contributor Author

felipeleusin commented May 21, 2018 via email

@thinkingserious
Copy link
Contributor

@xt0rted, @bmeredith,

Thanks for weighing in, much appreciated!

@felipeleusin,

Agreed, I think @xt0rted's approach is the way to go. Please move forward and I'll work to get this bumped in priority for merge.

@essmd
Copy link

essmd commented Jul 12, 2018

Hi guys!

I am facing an assembly issue that seems to be caused by the System.Net.Http Reference.
Before i added the Sendgrid nuget package there was no warning / conflict because of any assembly or redirect missmatch. It seems like this PR would resolve that issue or i am missing something?

Assembly Redirects in all projects neither to 4.0.0.0 nor to 4.1.1.0 (from nuget command) nor 4.2.0.0 did work completely. They just generated much more warnings due to redirect conflicts.
By using the assembly redirect from 0.0.0.0-4.2.0.0 to new version 4.2.0.0 for System.Net.Http did resolve all warnings but not the last one (see screenshots below).

Project Setup:

ProjectA

  • Framework: .NET Full Framework 4.7.1
  • Nuget: Sendgrid 9.9.0 (latest)
  • References: None (only the default). System.Net.Http is referenced due to Nuget Package dependency from sendgrid (path is correct!)

Project B

  • Type: Console / Azure WebJobs (2.2)
  • Framework: .NET Full Framework 4.7.1
  • References: ProjectA (no reference to System.Net.Http)

Here are some screenshots from the Warning:

assembly-error-01

and also from the build output (details):

assembly-error-02

@thinkingserious
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @essmd,

I've added your vote to the PR internally to help move it up our priority queue.

@thinkingserious thinkingserious merged commit ec5c26e into sendgrid:master Aug 21, 2018
@thinkingserious
Copy link
Contributor

Hello @felipeleusin,

Thanks again for the PR!

We appreciate your contribution and look forward to continued collaboration. Thanks!

Team SendGrid DX

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
difficulty: easy fix is easy in difficulty status: code review request requesting a community code review or review from Twilio type: community enhancement feature request not on Twilio's roadmap
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants