Create Abstractions package #3567
Conversation
paulmedynski
force-pushed
the
dev/paul/azure-split/abstractions
branch
from
e912975 to
261f4af
Compare
| AzureKeyVaultUrl: $(AzureKeyVaultUrl) | ||
| AzureKeyVaultTenantId: $(AzureKeyVaultTenantId) | ||
| SupportsIntegratedSecurity: false | ||
| UserManagedIdentityClientId: $(UserManagedIdentityClientId_eastus) | ||
| LocalDbAppName: $(LocalDbAppName) | ||
| LocalDbSharedInstanceName: $(LocalDbSharedInstanceName) | ||
|
|
||
| ${{ if eq(variables['system.pullRequest.isFork'], 'False') }}: # only run enclave jobs if the password is available |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My YAML linter was complaining about duplicate keys because these ${{if ...} lines are the same. Similar changes below for the enclave test configurations.
|
|
||
| eng/pipelines/common/templates/jobs/validate-signed-package-job.yml | ||
| --> | ||
| <AssemblyFileVersion Condition="'$(AssemblyFileVersion)' == ''">$(MdsVersionDefault).$(BuildNumber)</AssemblyFileVersion> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor tweak here - I added $(BuildNumber) - not sure if that's helpful, but it matches how the Extensions package does things.
It used to append -dev instead of the build number. I think this will only affect manual builds.
eng/pipelines/dotnet-sqlclient-ci-package-reference-pipeline.yml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| - Attestation: _**New API will be exposed.**_ | ||
| - Key Valut: [SqlColumnEncryptionKeyStoreProvider](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.data.sqlclient.sqlcolumnencryptionkeystoreprovider?view=sqlclient-dotnet-core-6.0) | ||
|
|
||
| ## Versioning Strategy |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this aligns with our general extension strategy. Let's discuss if anyone has concerns.
| We embed debug symbols in some of our application (i.e. non-symbol) NuGet | ||
| packages. | ||
|
|
||
| TODO: Why are we doing this? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thoughts? Why do we want symbols in our application packages, when we're publishing separate symbols packages anyway?
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## feat/azure-split #3567 +/- ##
===================================================
Coverage ? 64.96%
===================================================
Files ? 274
Lines ? 62478
Branches ? 0
===================================================
Hits ? 40590
Misses ? 21888
Partials ? 0
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
paulmedynski
changed the title
- Added empty Extensions package with some sample class and docs to demonstrate packaging. - Created CI stage to build, test, pack, and publish the Extensions NuGet package. - Updated downstream CI stages/jobs to use the Extensions package. - Updated build.proj Clean target to not delete packages/ dir. - Updated BUILDGUIDE with instructions for the Extensions package. - Cleaned up stale BUIDGUIDE sections. - Added temporary GitHub Discussion content so the team can review before posting it as a real Discussion. - Disable .pdb file inclusion in the application package. - Renamed Extensions package to Abstractions. - Updated README related to extensions design.
paulmedynski
force-pushed
the
dev/paul/azure-split/abstractions
branch
from
c2a8e97 to
d4464ec
Compare
Overview
As part of the Azure split work, a new Abstractions package is being created that contains types shared between MDS and its future extensions (Azure will be the first). This PR creates that package (with no meaningful content) to setup the MDS dependency, and get testing and CI setup accordingly.
I'm also experimenting with simplified .slnx files and some project directory structure changes.
This supercedes the original draft PR #3471.
Issues
The first step towards #1108.
Testing