-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 387
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
Export initial rules subscriptions #9561
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Export initial rules subscriptions #9561
Conversation
The current DTBB design in CPS is subscription based. As new subscriptions are processed, it leads to the cancellation or requeuing of builds, which can sometimes result in builds being in an invalid state. To address this issue, we've recently defined new MEF metadata in CPS, that take rule name as input to pre-identify design time build targets subscriptions to minimize the need for repeated build cancellations. This is also applicable to C# DevKit, where the logs indicate numerous cancellations. |
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ namespace Microsoft.VisualStudio.ProjectSystem.VS.Setup; | |||
/// </remarks> | |||
[Export(ExportContractNames.Scopes.UnconfiguredProject, typeof(IProjectDynamicLoadComponent))] | |||
[AppliesTo(ProjectCapability.DotNet)] | |||
[ExportInitialBuildRulesSubscriptions(SuggestedWorkload.SchemaName)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Both language service and NuGet restore code is also loaded by default in VS Green. I wonder they should be moved to a common location (or we need similar work for VS Green as well.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd vote to copy the attribute to green, given the rest of the code was largely a copy. Then if the targets change between implementations for any reason, they can be listed separately. But either approach would be fine.
Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow