Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    what happened when you installed 4.6?
    I'm running Visual Studio 2013 Update 4 for my work on this project
    @SergeyTeplyakov HERE IT IS: Microsoft .NET Framework 4.6 RC Multi-Targeting Pack (Sorry for the prior confusion :worried: )
    The .NET Framework 4.6 RC Multi-Targeting Pack is a package that enables developers to build applications targeting the .NET Framework 4.6 using either Visual Studio 2013, Visual Studio 2012 or third party IDEs. You need to download and install the .NET Framework 4.6 RC prior to installing the multi-targeting pack.
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    Thanks! :clap:
    Building...
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    Build passed!
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    codeformatter is interesting
    oh, did you see #105?
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    I'll merge this and rebuild it
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    building updated version...
    Micah Zoltu
    @MicahZoltu
    Once the 2015 release is ready, where will I be able to download it from? GitHub releases, codeplex downloads or Visual Studio extension manager?
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    github release - community preview. VSExtension manager and VS gallery if you need signed bits
    Micah Zoltu
    @MicahZoltu
    Excellent. Thanks!
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @SergeyTeplyakov I'm going to pause for a bit on the formatting PRs
    They aren't too much work, but I want to make sure we agree on the approach.
    I'm sending one project at a time because it's easy to redo a project if someone sends a pull request that we want to include and don't want merge conflicts.
    The biggest deal is the commits themselves have Francesco as the Author so Git Blame returns the correct result.
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    yep I'm going to put a comment about formatting rules. Another question is Git Blame, that's true
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    I propose following the corefx formatting rules. Primary reason: my initial preference for the future home of CodeContracts is in the dotnet organization, and that's the rules they use.
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    I'm ok with formatting rules themselves I'm more concerned that this is not enough... I would prefer more advanced manual formatting that I've described in the comment to #106
    Any objections?
    @sharwell I'm going to create a tag for the release
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    This message was deleted
    This message was deleted
    what commit is the tag? (hash)
    @SergeyTeplyakov I replied to your comment in #106. I don't see a commit yet which has the correct version numbers, so I'm concerned about the release tag. I'm guessing you just haven't pushed the commit yet?
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    I'm AFK for an hour or so. Will check back before bed.
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    Will crate in a second
    Yep, I didn't created a PR
    #110
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    https://github.com/Microsoft/CodeContracts/releases/tag/v.1.9.10709.0
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    I've applied PR, tested but was unable to release (1 a.m in the morning already)
    But even with this fix I was unable to build Code Contracts with VS2015
    #39 this fix was critical
    if anyone would be able to check, would be appreciated.
    I'll work on this bug: Microsoft/CodeContracts#112
    Unit test added. Bug reproduced
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    I've seen a few issues. I can't build tunnelvisionlabs/LangSvcV2 in debug mode but I can build it in release mode (the latter being a new ability of this release).
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    I'm back:)
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @SergeyTeplyakov Make sure you catch that I edited my last comment in #111. Previously I referred to CoreTaskExtensions.Catch, but I believe CoreTaskExtensions.Finally is a better option since it passes through the return value from the antecedent unchanged.
    I'm headed to lunch ttyl
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    Have a good lunch!
    I've replied in the comment and will duplicated the idea here. Because rewriter operates on IL level I think there should be clear benefits of changing current logic. Like switching to TaskCompletionSource is super simple when dealing with C#, but not so simple when you need to do this from IL. So it should be clear benefits to do this. Maybe I missing something, but I can't see them right now...
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @SergeyTeplyakov The rewriter is changing the semantics of asynchronous methods in a way that breaks exception handling. If you have a catch (MyException) in your code that works, enabling the rewriter will force you to catch (AggregateException) instead. Also it breaks cancellation, turning all canceled tasks into faulted ones.
    The only case it actually works for right now is tasks that run to completion.
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    Yep. Agree!
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @SergeyTeplyakov for the next release, don't include a . in the tag between v and 1
    The release notes link in the nuspec doesn't have a . there.
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    thanks