Skip to content

Conversation

@jasonmalinowski
Copy link
Member

We were initializing this in package load, because at one point the APIs to do so had to be on the UI thread. At this point the only remaining use of this service is for the legacy solution crawler, so there's no point in initializing it until the service is actually constructed. And since everything is now free threaded, it's easy to move.

@jasonmalinowski jasonmalinowski self-assigned this Aug 27, 2025
@jasonmalinowski jasonmalinowski requested a review from a team as a code owner August 27, 2025 23:02
@jasonmalinowski jasonmalinowski force-pushed the move-initialization-of-global-operation-service branch from 4152a4e to cfe00ec Compare August 27, 2025 23:02
Copy link
Contributor

@AbhitejJohn AbhitejJohn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would we need to validate Source Based Discovery (which I believe is the unit testing component that needs the old solution crawler) for this change?

@jasonmalinowski
Copy link
Member Author

@AbhitejJohn: probably, or at least stick this under a debugger and validate that the same registration and event hookup code is running. Since this is just a straight code move with no effort to clean it up I'm not too worried.

We were initializing this in package load, because at one point the
APIs to do so had to be on the UI thread. At this point the only
remaining use of this service is for the legacy solution crawler,
so there's no point in initializing it until the service is actually
constructed. And since everything is now free threaded, it's easy to
move.
@jasonmalinowski jasonmalinowski force-pushed the move-initialization-of-global-operation-service branch from cfe00ec to e341388 Compare August 28, 2025 21:41
@jasonmalinowski
Copy link
Member Author

Turns out this code isn't actually being used. Starting a conversation with a few folks.

@jasonmalinowski
Copy link
Member Author

It looks like #74239 removed the service that proxied this information over to ServiceHub; without that implementation this is dead code. I'm going to go ahead and merge this PR just because we're right now wasting time on load running this, but we'll still decide on a long term plan.

@jasonmalinowski jasonmalinowski merged commit 53cef38 into dotnet:main Aug 28, 2025
24 of 25 checks passed
@dotnet-policy-service dotnet-policy-service bot added this to the Next milestone Aug 28, 2025
@jasonmalinowski jasonmalinowski deleted the move-initialization-of-global-operation-service branch August 28, 2025 23:36
Copy link
Member

@CyrusNajmabadi CyrusNajmabadi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@jasonmalinowski jasonmalinowski restored the move-initialization-of-global-operation-service branch September 3, 2025 17:56
@akhera99 akhera99 modified the milestones: Next, 18.0 P1, 18.0 P2 Sep 22, 2025
@jasonmalinowski jasonmalinowski deleted the move-initialization-of-global-operation-service branch September 23, 2025 22:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants