Merging internal commits for release/6.0 #41156
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…lt hosting config ## Description Prior to this change, default config (typically loaded from `DOTNET_`/`ASPNET_` environment variables and command line arguments) could override the application-level configuration. This would prevent `GenericWebHostService` from seeing the latest configuration set by `UseUrls()` of `DOTNET_URLS`, `ASPNET_URLS` or `--urls` was set. Fixes dotnet#38185 ## Customer Impact This is a big gotcha to customers using `WebApplicationBuilder` (which is used in all the ASP.NET Core 6 templates) who expect the following to work: ```C# var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args); builder.WebHost.UseUrls("http://*:8080"); var app = builder.Build(); app.Run(); ``` A comment on the issue suggesting we patch this has gotten 5 thumbs ups not counting mine. ## Regression? - [ ] Yes - [x] No ## Risk - [ ] High - [ ] Medium - [x] Low This is a small well tested change which only affects the loading of default config sources and those added via a `HostFactoryResolver` to host configuration. [Here’s the existing test](https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/blob/0f6f649f1da658bbe37b8898df0c80c5affa9d2d/src/DefaultBuilder/test/Microsoft.AspNetCore.Tests/WebApplicationTests.cs#L883) showing that the expected configuration providers are still dispose. ## Verification - [x] Manual (required) - [x] Automated ## Packaging changes reviewed? - [ ] Yes - [ ] No - [x] N/A
…t-efcore dnceng/internal/dotnet-runtime - Set to private runtime
# {PR title}
Summary of the changes (Less than 80 chars)
## Description
{Detail}
Fixes #{bug number} (in this specific format)
## Customer Impact
{Justification}
## Regression?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
[If yes, specify the version the behavior has regressed from]
## Risk
- [ ] High
- [ ] Medium
- [ ] Low
[Justify the selection above]
## Verification
- [ ] Manual (required)
- [ ] Automated
## Packaging changes reviewed?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
- [ ] N/A
----
## When servicing release/2.1
- [ ] Make necessary changes in eng/PatchConfig.props
Merge from github release/6.0
# {PR title}
Correct `--architecture` in `fpm` commands
## Description
Update `fpm` commands to use a supported `--architecture` value. As-is, the x64 .rpm files we produce are incompatible w/ installation on an x64 machine. Problem found during servicing version flow.
## Customer Impact
Unable to build dotnet-installer-ci-official w/ current .rpm files from dotnet-aspnetcore repo.
## Regression?
- [x] Yes
- [ ] No
This is a build regression since 6.0.3. It will also impact our 'main' branch.
## Risk
- [ ] High
- [ ] Medium
- [x] Low
Have verified the chosen values for the command line using available online documentation. Since we know the current .rpm files are busted, things can only get better 😃
## Verification
- [x] Manual (required)
- [ ] Automated
I am locally building this branch and will use `rpmlint` in a `docker` container to verify the goodness of the produced package.
## Packaging changes reviewed?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
- [ ] N/A
Not sure how to answer this because the change is to an internal setting of the RPM installer. If others agree it's the right change, it's been reviewed 😃
----
## When servicing release/2.1
- [ ] Make necessary changes in eng/PatchConfig.props
# {PR title}
Summary of the changes (Less than 80 chars)
## Description
{Detail}
Fixes #{bug number} (in this specific format)
## Customer Impact
{Justification}
## Regression?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
[If yes, specify the version the behavior has regressed from]
## Risk
- [ ] High
- [ ] Medium
- [ ] Low
[Justify the selection above]
## Verification
- [ ] Manual (required)
- [ ] Automated
## Packaging changes reviewed?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
- [ ] N/A
----
## When servicing release/2.1
- [ ] Make necessary changes in eng/PatchConfig.props
…ce-Build (dotnet#40650)" (dotnet#40805) # {PR title} Summary of the changes (Less than 80 chars) ## Description {Detail} Fixes #{bug number} (in this specific format) ## Customer Impact {Justification} ## Regression? - [ ] Yes - [ ] No [If yes, specify the version the behavior has regressed from] ## Risk - [ ] High - [ ] Medium - [ ] Low [Justify the selection above] ## Verification - [ ] Manual (required) - [ ] Automated ## Packaging changes reviewed? - [ ] Yes - [ ] No - [ ] N/A ---- ## When servicing release/2.1 - [ ] Make necessary changes in eng/PatchConfig.props Revert "[release/6.0] Build ProjectTemplates in Source-Build (dotnet#40650)" (dotnet#40805) This reverts commit 7c2000d.
…-merge-6.0-2022-04-12-1158
vseanreesermsft
requested review from
Tratcher,
dougbu,
a team and
Pilchie
as code owners
ghost
added this to the 
|
Hi @vseanreesermsft. If this is not a tell-mode PR, please make sure to follow the instructions laid out in the servicing process document. |
dougbu
added
area-infrastructure
|
@mmitche this was not ready to go. Sorry I was out yesterday afternoon and didn't get this done. But merging without the rest means nothing as far as code flow goes. |
|
@dougbu What else needed done here? |
|
Hi @mmitche. It looks like you just commented on a closed PR. The team will most probably miss it. If you'd like to bring something important up to their attention, consider filing a new issue and add enough details to build context. |
|
|
This is just the internal commit merge. That sounds more like a separate branding update? |
|
Hi @mmitche. It looks like you just commented on a closed PR. The team will most probably miss it. If you'd like to bring something important up to their attention, consider filing a new issue and add enough details to build context. |
|
We usually do it all in one because merging these PRs seems to send an all clear to the CQBs. I'll put up a PR and ping you in it so you can watch 😄 |
|
Okay. Was definitely not interpreting this as an all-clear. Note that the SDK has already been updated in a separate arcade PR. |
|
Hi @mmitche. It looks like you just commented on a closed PR. The team will most probably miss it. If you'd like to bring something important up to their attention, consider filing a new issue and add enough details to build context. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.