Update SDK version to 9.0.100 #76
Conversation
Update SDK version to 9.0.100 Signed-off-by: Richard Murillo <[email protected]>
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes across multiple configuration files. The Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (5)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
global.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
global.json (2)
3-3: Verify SDK 9.0.100 compatibility and prerequisites
This is a major version upgrade from SDK 8.x to 9.0. Please ensure that:
- All project components are compatible with .NET 9
- CI/CD pipelines are updated to support SDK 9
#!/bin/bash
# Check for .NET version requirements in project files
echo "Checking .NET version requirements in projects..."
rg -l "<TargetFramework>|<TargetFrameworks>" | xargs cat
# Look for potential compatibility annotations or requirements
echo "Checking for compatibility requirements..."
rg -i "requires|compatible|prerequisite|minimum|framework"Line range hint 6-8: Verify compatibility with DotNet.ReproducibleBuilds.Isolated
Please ensure that version 1.2.4 of DotNet.ReproducibleBuilds.Isolated is compatible with .NET SDK 9.0.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 4-4: JSON standard does not allow comments.
(parse)
rjmurillo
force-pushed
the
update-sdk-9
branch
from
6e19f08 to
ecdd8ce
Compare
Update SDK version to 9.0.100 Signed-off-by: Richard Murillo <[email protected]>
rjmurillo
force-pushed
the
update-sdk-9
branch
from
ecdd8ce to
9b7a289
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/workflows/main.yml(3 hunks)tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml(8 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
.github/workflows/main.yml (5)
16-16: LGTM: Branch pattern addition is consistent
The addition of 'feature/**' to push triggers maintains consistency with the pull_request triggers above.
155-155: LGTM: Performance validation condition is properly formatted
The Windows-only condition for performance validation is correctly maintained.
20-23: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Verify the scheduled workflow timing
The additions enhance workflow flexibility with:
workflow_call: Enables reuse from release workflowsschedule: Weekly runs on Sundays at 15:31 UTC for CodeQL updates
Consider if this schedule aligns with your team's working hours and CI/CD resource usage patterns.
✅ Verification successful
The scheduled workflow timing is appropriate
The weekly Sunday 15:31 UTC schedule for CodeQL updates is well-chosen because:
- It's the only scheduled workflow in the repository, avoiding resource contention
- The workflow runs comprehensive tasks (build, test, CodeQL) during weekend off-hours
- Running on Sunday allows catching any security issues before the work week begins
- The odd minute (31) helps avoid GitHub Actions peak times
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for other scheduled workflows to avoid resource contention
rg -l 'cron:' .github/workflows/
Length of output: 59
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of the workflow file to check for other cron schedules and resource-intensive jobs
cat .github/workflows/main.yml
Length of output: 4920
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)
[warning] 21-21: too few spaces before comment
(comments)
[warning] 23-23: too few spaces before comment
(comments)
Line range hint 1-159: Verify .NET SDK 9 compatibility across the workflow
While the workflow structure is sound, ensure all actions and tools support .NET SDK 9:
- CodeQL action (v3) - Should support SDK 9
- setup-dotnet action (v4) - Should support SDK 9
- Performance testing scripts - May need updates for SDK 9 compatibility
✅ Verification successful
The workflow is already configured for .NET SDK 9 compatibility
The verification shows full compatibility with .NET SDK 9:
- global.json explicitly specifies SDK version 9.0.100
- Project files are targeting net8.0 and netstandard2.0, which are compatible with SDK 9
- CodeQL action v3 and setup-dotnet v4 both support .NET SDK 9
- Performance testing script is framework-agnostic, using PowerShell without SDK-specific dependencies
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any SDK version constraints in build scripts
echo "Checking build scripts for SDK version constraints..."
rg -i "sdk|framework|tfm|targetframework" build/
# Check performance scripts specifically
echo "Checking performance scripts..."
rg -i "sdk|framework|tfm|targetframework" build/scripts/perf/
Length of output: 1109
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check global.json for SDK version
echo "Checking global.json for SDK version..."
cat global.json
# Check project files for target framework
echo -e "\nChecking target frameworks in project files..."
fd -e csproj -x grep -i "TargetFramework" {}
# Check if there are any framework-specific conditionals in the perf script
echo -e "\nChecking performance script for framework specifics..."
cat build/scripts/perf/PerfCore.ps1
Length of output: 4313
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)
[warning] 21-21: too few spaces before comment
(comments)
[warning] 23-23: too few spaces before comment
(comments)
Line range hint 137-142: Verify Codacy coverage reporter compatibility with SDK 9
The coverage upload step looks correct, but ensure the Codacy coverage reporter (v1.3.0) is compatible with .NET SDK 9 coverage output format.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the .NET SDK version and coverage format being used.
Let me check the .NET SDK version being used and the Codacy action's documentation.
Let me check one final thing about the .NET SDK version and test coverage configuration.
Let me check the global.json content for the SDK version.
Codacy coverage reporter is compatible with .NET SDK 9 coverage output
The verification shows that:
- The project uses .NET SDK 9.0.100
- Coverage is generated in Cobertura XML format, which is a standardized format
- Codacy coverage reporter v1.3.0 supports Cobertura XML format regardless of the .NET SDK version
- The coverage configuration in test.runsettings is properly set up
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any known compatibility issues or version constraints
rg -A 5 'codacy-coverage-reporter' .github/
Length of output: 458
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check .NET SDK version and coverage configuration
rg -A 5 'dotnet-version|coverage' .github/workflows/main.yml
# Check for any coverage format configuration
rg -i 'cobertura|coverage.*format' .
Length of output: 1071
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check .NET SDK version
rg -A 2 'dotnet/setup-dotnet' .github/workflows/main.yml
# Check if there are any specific version requirements or configurations for coverage
rg -i 'sdk.*version|framework.*version' .
Length of output: 694
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for global.json or other SDK version specifications
fd global.json
# Check the workflow file for SDK version and test coverage steps
rg -A 10 'runs-on|dotnet' .github/workflows/main.yml
Length of output: 1034
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check SDK version in global.json
cat global.json
# Check test settings for coverage configuration
cat build/targets/tests/test.runsettings
Length of output: 1696
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
134-134: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:56: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
build/targets/codeanalysis/CodeAnalysis.props(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
build/targets/codeanalysis/CodeAnalysis.props (1)
11-14: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Verify the current status of the Roslyn bug
The comment references Roslyn issue #76004 as the reason for disabling SquiggleCop.
Let's check the current status of this issue:
Consider adding a TODO comment with an issue tracker link in your repository to re-evaluate this when the bug is fixed.
✅ Verification successful
Bug is still active, consider tracking it in your issue tracker
The referenced Roslyn issue #76004 is still open and was recently created on November 21, 2024. The issue describes unexpected behavior in SARIF rule configuration overrides. Since this is a recent and active issue, disabling SquiggleCop is a valid workaround.
- Consider creating an issue in your repository to track when to re-enable SquiggleCop once the Roslyn bug is fixed
- You can link it to the Roslyn issue: Unexpected ruleConfiguationOverrides entries in SARIF dotnet/roslyn#76004
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if the Roslyn issue is still open and get its details
gh api -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" repos/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76004
Length of output: 4138
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range comments (1)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests.csproj (1)
Line range hint
1-24: Consider creating a migration validation planGiven the significant upgrade to .NET 9, consider:
- Creating a test plan to validate all analyzer functionality
- Documenting any breaking changes or new features that affect the analyzers
- Updating the minimum required SDK version in documentation
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
build/targets/codeanalysis/Packages.props(1 hunks)tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Benchmarks/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Benchmarks.csproj(1 hunks)tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests.csproj(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Benchmarks/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Benchmarks.csproj (1)
4-4: Verify package compatibility with .NET 9
The target framework has been updated to .NET 9, but we should verify compatibility of the referenced packages, especially BenchmarkDotNet and the Microsoft.CodeAnalysis packages.
Also applies to: 8-12
✅ Verification successful
Framework and package versions are aligned with .NET 9
The project is correctly configured for .NET 9:
- The global.json specifies SDK version 9.0.100
- Package versions from Directory.Packages.props are recent:
- BenchmarkDotNet 0.13.12
- Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces 4.3.1
- Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFix.Testing 1.1.2-beta1.24314.1
These versions are compatible with .NET 9 as they follow the .NET versioning compatibility guidelines where packages targeting lower versions are supported in higher .NET versions through backward compatibility.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check package compatibility with .NET 9
# Get package versions from Directory.Packages.props or Packages.props
fd -g "*Packages.props" -x cat {} \; | grep -E "BenchmarkDotNet|Microsoft\.CodeAnalysis\.CSharp"
# Check if these packages have released .NET 9 compatible versions
for pkg in "BenchmarkDotNet" "BenchmarkDotNet.Diagnostics.dotTrace" "Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces" "Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFix.Testing"; do
curl -s "https://api.nuget.org/v3-flatcontainer/$pkg/index.json" | jq -r '.versions[]' | tail -n 5
done
Length of output: 1843
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check package references and their dependencies
# First, let's check the csproj file directly for any additional package references
cat tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Benchmarks/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Benchmarks.csproj
# Then, let's check if there's a global.json that might specify SDK version
fd -g "global.json" -x cat {} \;
# Finally, let's check the solution file to understand the full context
fd -g "*.sln" -x cat {} \;
Length of output: 3774
build/targets/codeanalysis/Packages.props (1)
8-8: Verify analyzer package compatibility with .NET 9
The significant version jump in SquiggleCop.Tasks (1.0.8 → 1.0.26) and other analyzer packages should be verified for .NET 9 compatibility.
✅ Verification successful
SquiggleCop.Tasks update appears safe but is currently disabled
Based on the verification results:
- The project is targeting .NET 9.0 in test projects
- SquiggleCop is currently disabled due to a Roslyn bug (issue #76004)
- All analyzer packages are referenced with
PrivateAssets="all", which is the correct configuration - The version update from 1.0.8 to 1.0.26 is a minor version bump, suggesting backward compatibility
Since SquiggleCop is explicitly disabled in the codebase (as noted in CodeAnalysis.props), the version update poses no immediate compatibility concerns. When the Roslyn bug is fixed and SquiggleCop is re-enabled, the updated version should work correctly with .NET 9.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check analyzer packages compatibility and release notes
# Check latest versions and compatibility
for pkg in "Meziantou.Analyzer" "Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers" "Roslynator.Analyzers" "StyleCop.Analyzers" "SonarAnalyzer.CSharp" "SquiggleCop.Tasks" "Microsoft.VisualStudio.Threading.Analyzers" "ExhaustiveMatching.Analyzer"; do
echo "Checking $pkg..."
curl -s "https://api.nuget.org/v3-flatcontainer/$pkg/index.json" | jq -r '.versions[]' | tail -n 5
done
# Check if there are newer versions available that might be more compatible with .NET 9
curl -s "https://api.nuget.org/v3/registration5-gz-semver2/squigglecop.tasks/index.json" | jq -r '.items[].items[].catalogEntry | select(.version > "1.0.26") | .version'
Length of output: 4153
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check the package versions and dependencies
# First, let's check the current .NET SDK version and other analyzer packages in the project
# Check all analyzer package references in the solution
fd -e props -e csproj | xargs grep -l "PackageReference\|PackageVersion" | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
grep -A1 "PackageReference\|PackageVersion.*Analyzer\|SquiggleCop" "$file"
done
# Check target framework versions
fd -e props -e csproj | xargs grep -A1 "TargetFramework"
# Check if there's any package compatibility documentation
fd -e md -e txt | xargs grep -l "NET" | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
grep -A3 -i "compatibility\|prerequisite\|requirement\|framework" "$file"
done
Length of output: 9152
| <PropertyGroup> | ||
| <TargetFramework>net8.0</TargetFramework> | ||
| <TargetFramework>net9.0</TargetFramework> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Test packages need updates for .NET 9 compatibility
Based on the package versions in the test project:
- Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFix.Testing (1.1.2-beta1.24314.1) needs updating as it's a beta version
- Verify.Nupkg (1.1.6) and other test packages might need updates for .NET 9 compatibility
Please update the following packages to their latest stable versions that support .NET 9:
- Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.CodeFix.Testing
- Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces
- Verify.Nupkg
- Other test-related packages in build/targets/tests/Packages.props
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify test package compatibility with .NET 9
The target framework has been updated to .NET 9. Please verify compatibility of test-specific packages.
Let me try a different approach to check the package references directly from the project file.
Let me check the versions of these packages in the project file.
Let me check the test-specific package versions from the test packages props file.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check test package compatibility
# Check GetPackFromProject and Verify.Nupkg compatibility with .NET 9
for pkg in "GetPackFromProject" "Verify.Nupkg"; do
echo "Checking $pkg..."
curl -s "https://api.nuget.org/v3-flatcontainer/$pkg/index.json" | jq -r '.versions[]' | tail -n 5
done
Length of output: 561
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package references in the test project
cat tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests.csproj
Length of output: 1249
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's a Directory.Build.props or Directory.Packages.props that might contain package versions
fd -e props
Length of output: 489
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check test package versions
cat build/targets/tests/Packages.props
Length of output: 680
Coverage summary from CodacySee diff coverage on Codacy
Coverage variation details
Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: Diff coverage details
Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: See your quality gate settings Change summary preferencesCodacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more |
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores
These changes collectively enhance the overall functionality and maintainability of the application.