High-priority list of properties requiring attention (3)

[tmeschter]

This work item has been split off of #6907 to contain the highest priority items.

The following properties are currently included in the UI and require some sort of additional treatment to make them work correctly.

• Order of values in target framework drop down (both .NET Core and .NET Framework families) (possibly CPS, maybe this)
  • This may be a bug in our SupportedTargetFrameworksProvider; we may need to do some explicit sorting.
• Nullable should only be visible when using C# 8 or greater
  • Possible solution: expose the language version as a hidden property, and condition the visibility of Nullable on that.
• Nullable appearing with nothing selected Opened Determine general solution for properties that have no initial value #7360
  • This is because the SDK doesn't provide a default value for the <Nullable> property. We don't currently have a good general solution to this, but it could be handled with an IInterceptingPropertyValueProvider: if the property isn't set it could return disabled for the value.
• Toggling "use multi-targeting" shows a project fault (fix or remove these options)
  • We should remove the check box, and condition the visibility of the TargetFramework and TargetFrameworks properties on those properties actually being defined. That way only one or the other will show.
• Rationalize TreatWarningsAsErrors, NoWarn, WarningsAsErrors and WarningsNotAsErrors (see Add UI for WarningsNotAsErrors #2409 for some context)
  • These properties are all related, so we should make sure the user understands how they work together.
• "Prefer 32-bit" should show, but only when targeting .NET Framework (PR Add Prefer32Bit property #7362)
  • When single-targeting we should show this if the target framework is from the .NET Framework family.
  • When multi-targeting, we should show this if any of the target frameworks is from the .NET Framework family.

[tmeschter]

@jjmew Here's the issue tracking the property page tweaks that I think someone other than me or @drewnoakes could make. I've excluded items that I view as low priority (e.g., changes specifically to support non-SDK projects) or are complex.

@drewnoakes I split these out of #6907. Let me know if there are other things we could include here.

[drewnoakes]

@tmeschter @jjmew I think it would be easier to track if these were broken out into separate issues. Priorities can be fluid, and these may be assigned to different people.

[tmeschter]

@drewnoakes Per @jjmew's request, I've kept these in a single issue.

[jjmew]

@drewnoakes the reason was because I could assign it directly to @MiYanni

[MiYanni]

All of these have either been addressed or split into other issues.