Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    thanks
    ok. will do
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    Ok. I've fixed #112
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @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
    I think I figured it out
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    I fixed the stack overflow, but it's still broken due to another bug in the same block
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @SergeyTeplyakov #117 is a pretty vital PR. I'm about to follow it with another one too.
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    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
    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
    This message was deleted
    I'll merge PR's later today.
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov

    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
    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
    Just verified - this can be a real problem => added issue #122
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    @tom-englert Thanks, you're right. need to fix it...
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    @tom-englert Maybe it would be easier to discuss CR questions here...
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @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
    @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
    tom-englert
    @tom-englert
    I tried to run the tests, and many of them fail, but seem to be correct, while others succeed but seem to be wrong (e.g. in Analyze1FromSourcesV40Cache things like ---Actual outcomes---
    Outcome=ProofOutcome.False,Message="Cannot connect to the cache. The CodeContracts static check will not run",PrimaryILOffset=5,MethodILOffset=0
    ---Expected outcomes---

    No entry found in the cache

    tom-englert
    @tom-englert
    Some of the regression tests seem to be fine, but all the PrimaryILOffset have shifted, so they are considered failed. Does this depend on the compiler?
    Did anyone have look at the tests? Do they succeed on the build machine?
    jbcutting
    @jbcutting
    With the latest preview release, everything builds, but none of the messages or warnings are making it into the errors window in VS2015. Is anyone else seeing this or is it just me?
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @jbcutting Are you referring to the behavior of custom analyzers?
    If so, you must use the same version of Roslyn to build your analyzer as the build of Visual Studio you are using.
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @jbcutting I'm terrible sorry, for some reason I thought your comment was in the dotnet/roslyn Gitter room. I haven't noticed the behavior you describe with code contracts, but I also haven't spent as much time with it in Visual Studio 2015 as I feel like I need to.
    jbcutting
    @jbcutting
    Nope, definitely referring to Code Contracts. Messages and warnings still show up in the errors list window for me in VS2013, but not in VS2015. I see the expected results in the Output window, but they don't make it to the errors list.
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov

    @sharwell
    @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

    I'm in parental leave right now :) but hope to review those changes:)

    Nope, definitely referring to Code Contracts. Messages and warnings still show up in the errors list window for me in VS2013, but not in VS2015. I see the expected results in the Output window, but they don't make it to the errors list.

    I'm not using VS2015 right now as well. Lets double check and just open the issue.

    @sharwell I hope to create a release with #134. Also I'll review and apply all formatting PRs.
    If you would be able to fix some fixes for Editor Extension then we would be able to release them as well.
    jbcutting
    @jbcutting
    The only reason I haven't been using VS2015 up 'til now is the code contracts issues. :-) Unfortunately, I don't have another machine I can test this on, so I didn't want to submit an issue unless someone else can confirm it. If anyone else can confirm it, I'll submit it.
    I've also seen the editor extension crash VS2015, but it's not consistent and I don't have repro steps yet.
    jbcutting
    @jbcutting
    Actually... one time, I saw the extension itself crash, VS2015 stayed up. However, VS2015 crashes consistently for me if I hover over a few method calls to get IntelliSense. The first one or two work, then it crashes. Every time. If I disable the Code Contracts Editor Extension, this does not occur. It works okay for me in VS2013.
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @jbcutting The crash that brings down VS2015 is almost certainly #116. Also, feel free to submit an issue that you aren't 100% sure of. Describe it as best you can and if we have problems reproducing it we'll let you know. As long as you take the time to separate your expected results from your actual results we can typically find a way to resolve it to your satisfaction. :smile:
    jbcutting
    @jbcutting
    I don't think the ones I hovered over were generic types or generic methods, but I can verify. It does seem likely that's the issue, though - there's a delay where the IDE seems to hang before the crash occurs, which could very well be a stack overflow.
    tom-englert
    @tom-englert
    @SergeyTeplyakov did you run the regression tests on the build machine? Do they succeed?
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    @tom-englert What buld machine and what tests? And what case?
    I've lost the context, I guess...
    Sam Harwell
    @sharwell
    @SergeyTeplyakov since you are here, can you give an update on the status of the three editor extensions PRs I sent?
    #116 is severe; you can't keep the extension installed or VS will frequently crash (not just a message box - actually terminates the process).
    Sergey Teplyakov
    @SergeyTeplyakov
    @sharwell Sorry. I've looked at it but didn't merge.