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

Correctly handle different architectures for devdeviceID #43471

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 18, 2024

Conversation

marcpopMSFT
Copy link
Member

@marcpopMSFT marcpopMSFT commented Sep 16, 2024

Summary

DevDeviceID was introduced in RC2 as a way to be consistent with Visual Studio on how to track individual devices. There was a bug in the initial implementation where on windows, we would use the SDK architecture version of the registry for reading and storing the cached value

Customer Impact

x86 SDKs would have a completely unique devdevice ID to the x64 version on the same box. The spec calls for the same id regardless of architecture.

Regression

No, implemented incorrectly.

Testing

Minimal. Update the test to ensure we have caching

Risk

Very low

Update the test to ensure we have caching
@marcpopMSFT
Copy link
Member Author

Test failures are the known container failures.

…he 64bit hive on x64 and arm64 and the x86 hive on x86
@marcpopMSFT
Copy link
Member Author

/backport to release/9.0.1xx-rc2

Copy link
Contributor

Started backporting to release/9.0.1xx-rc2: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/actions/runs/10911658029

@marcpopMSFT marcpopMSFT changed the title Correctly handle different architectures of the SDK Correctly handle different architectures for devdeviceID Sep 18, 2024
@marcpopMSFT marcpopMSFT added Servicing-approved and removed Servicing-consider untriaged Request triage from a team member labels Sep 18, 2024
@marcpopMSFT marcpopMSFT merged commit 8b99b19 into release/9.0.1xx Sep 18, 2024
31 checks passed
@marcpopMSFT marcpopMSFT deleted the marcpopMSFT-devDeviceID branch September 18, 2024 18:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants