-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 391
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
Properly address property pages item ordering #7025
Comments
A third option would be to update Microsoft.NET.SupportedTargetFrameworks.props to include explicit ordering information separate from the order of items in the .props. |
Fourth option: parse the Include for each item from that .props (e.g. |
I would vote for adding specific |
To avoid parsing, this is "already done" in the SDK side: instead of capturing all of the values in SupportedTargetFramework item, we could store and use each framework's ItemGroup Microsoft.NET.SupportedTargetFrameworks.props. |
CPS now has a way for us to obtain the original item ordering, which may fix this. We'll need code such as: var after = projectChangeDescription.After.Items as IDataWithOriginalSource<KeyValuePair<string, IImmutableDictionary<string, string>>>; This gives an There are three places we could do this in the current code. Search for |
There's a cut of this in the |
Evaluation data is handled differently to build data, and there's more re-use of the underlying immutable data structures over time. This means there's less likelihood we'd get ordered evaluation data using |
Related: #6989
Currently, CPS does not seem to maintain item ordering. This can be seen in the Target Framework dropdown. For now, we are putting in a hotfix to manually order these items. However, the proper fix has a couple options:
a. For target framework, the items are declared here and this ordering should be preserved: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/blob/master/src/Tasks/Microsoft.NET.Build.Tasks/targets/Microsoft.NET.SupportedTargetFrameworks.props
These two options could both be completed, where the default is preserved ordering and it is optional to add your own ordering to the Rule definitions. When this PR is completed, please revert the hotfix here:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: