Skip to content

Add loose PDB relative blob path #15781

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 25, 2025

Conversation

mmitche
Copy link
Member

@mmitche mmitche commented Apr 25, 2025

In VMR builds, we do sometimes have multiple legs producing the same pdbs. We do often want to publish those PDBs from multiple legs and there could be overlap in the local symbol path coming out of the build. Ensure we can disambiguate these by prepending the SYSTEM_PHASENAME when available.

To double check:

In VMR builds, we do sometimes have multiple legs producing the same pdbs. We do often want to publish those PDBs from multiple legs and there could be overlap in the local symbol path coming out of the build. Ensure we can disambiguate these by prepending the SYSTEM_PHASENAME when available.
@mmitche
Copy link
Member Author

mmitche commented Apr 25, 2025

@ViktorHofer and @jkoritzinsky I'm wondering what you think of this. I don't love it. The other option would be to put the PDBs under Vertical under a similar condition to what we use for the non-rid specific artifacts. BUT, I'm not sure that this would be the right decision. I'm sure some of those PDBs should get published. Furthermore, Extra PDB indexing has less downside than publishing more than one package that has the same ID.

@mmitche mmitche requested a review from hoyosjs April 25, 2025 02:42
Copy link
Member

@jkoritzinsky jkoritzinsky left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I always forget that automatically-added items don't go through Artifacts. Nothing to change in this PR relating to that though.

LGTM!

@ViktorHofer ViktorHofer merged commit 628387b into dotnet:main Apr 25, 2025
11 checks passed
Copy link
Member

@ViktorHofer ViktorHofer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@ViktorHofer
Copy link
Member

Damn, I already hit the merge button. @hoyosjs please let us know if this look good to you.

@mmitche
Copy link
Member Author

mmitche commented Apr 26, 2025

There's an issue with this with the condition. Fixing now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants