These are chat archives for Microsoft/CodeContracts

11th
Jul 2015
Sam Harwell
@sharwell
Jul 11 2015 02:29
@SergeyTeplyakov editor extensions in 2015 has a stack overflow... working on reproducer now
at least we get to practice the release process :worried:
Sam Harwell
@sharwell
Jul 11 2015 02:35
I think I figured it out
Sam Harwell
@sharwell
Jul 11 2015 03:06
I fixed the stack overflow, but it's still broken due to another bug in the same block
Sam Harwell
@sharwell
Jul 11 2015 03:37
@SergeyTeplyakov #117 is a pretty vital PR. I'm about to follow it with another one too.
Sergey Teplyakov
@SergeyTeplyakov
Jul 11 2015 04:01
I can wait when you'll tackle another one and will apply both and will prepare another release
And, BTW, should we separate releases for editor extensions and the tool itself? this should simplify the overall release process...
Sam Harwell
@sharwell
Jul 11 2015 04:11
I would prefer not to, at least not yet. We have the advantage of keeping the build numbers for each in sync right now.
If we decide to split the two, I think we should do it when the repository is moved by actually splitting the repository into two repositories, one for the tool and one for the editor extensions.
I think I'm done for right now. Off to watch a show.
I'll look back before bed.
BTW: I found more bugs but I haven't filed all yet. The only critical one I found though was the one I fixed in #117.
I recommend at least #117 and #120 for the updated release, and possibly #121 as well.
Sergey Teplyakov
@SergeyTeplyakov
Jul 11 2015 04:25
This message was deleted
I'll merge PR's later today.
Sergey Teplyakov
@SergeyTeplyakov
Jul 11 2015 04:32

The problem with one release is following: new Code Contracts release means that production bits for the customers could be changed. No one can freely switch to new version of such tool without proper testing. This means that the overall requirements for Code Contracts is significatly different that for editor extension. I don't want to show an updates to Code Contracts tool if there is no changes. On the other hand I don't want to block editor extensions releases when new version become available.

Thats why I think different releases are important. Just because the goals of those tools are significantly different.

I think we already had the same discussion and it seems nothing had change from that time:)
tom-englert
@tom-englert
Jul 11 2015 14:49
I think I found a design flaw in #80 / #97. If there are both DBs installed, we might end up toggling between both versions if we just use the one that connects first. I'm not sure what happens if a file registered in v11 will be registered again in v12 - if they are binary compatible, it might work, but we might also end up destroying the cache every time we toggle between v11 and v12.
tom-englert
@tom-englert
Jul 11 2015 15:11
Just verified - this can be a real problem => added issue #122
Sergey Teplyakov
@SergeyTeplyakov
Jul 11 2015 15:55
@tom-englert Thanks, you're right. need to fix it...
Sergey Teplyakov
@SergeyTeplyakov
Jul 11 2015 16:34
@tom-englert Maybe it would be easier to discuss CR questions here...
Sam Harwell
@sharwell
Jul 11 2015 22:24
@SergeyTeplyakov we need to review the formatting PRs before they are merged.
It helps to use better diff software, such as Beyond Compare for it
Sam Harwell
@sharwell
Jul 11 2015 23:09
@SergeyTeplyakov I added comments to 3 formatting PRs that I reviewed per-file and appear to be correct.
but you can wait until after the editor extensions update to merge the formatting changes