Skip to content
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

Introducing Time abstraction Part2 (down-level support) #84235

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 7, 2023

Conversation

tarekgh
Copy link
Member

@tarekgh tarekgh commented Apr 3, 2023

This change is adding the time abstraction to the down-levels.

#83604
#36617

@dotnet-issue-labeler dotnet-issue-labeler bot added needs-area-label An area label is needed to ensure this gets routed to the appropriate area owners new-api-needs-documentation labels Apr 3, 2023
@ghost ghost assigned tarekgh Apr 3, 2023
@dotnet-issue-labeler
Copy link

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

@tarekgh tarekgh requested a review from stephentoub April 3, 2023 00:50
@tarekgh tarekgh added area-System.DateTime and removed needs-area-label An area label is needed to ensure this gets routed to the appropriate area owners labels Apr 3, 2023
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 3, 2023

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-datetime
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

This change is adding the time abstraction to the down-levels.

#83604

Author: tarekgh
Assignees: tarekgh
Labels:

new-api-needs-documentation, area-System.DateTime

Milestone: -

@tarekgh tarekgh added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Apr 3, 2023
@tarekgh
Copy link
Member Author

tarekgh commented Apr 3, 2023

@ericstj Could you please have a look at the newly introduced library and confirm I got the building and packaging, correct?

CC @terrajobst

Copy link
Member

@ericstj ericstj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OOB project looks correct.


<ItemGroup Condition="'$(IsPartialFacadeAssembly)' != 'true'">
<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces" Version="$(MicrosoftBclAsyncInterfacesVersion)" />
<PackageReference Include="System.ValueTuple" Version="$(SystemValueTupleVersion)" />
Copy link
Member

@ViktorHofer ViktorHofer May 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

netstandard2.0 shouldn't reference this library as it's already provided inbox.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 1, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants