-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
[Blazor] Remove unnecessary update to the Blazor webassembly js file #50949
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
[Blazor] Remove unnecessary update to the Blazor webassembly js file #50949
Conversation
ea052a7 to
faec67a
Compare
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.
5146603 to
52ca4a7
Compare
93b1cc7 to
9c74276
Compare
9c74276 to
0dc4703
Compare
I see the same failure on an unrelated pr https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/pull/50948/checks?check_run_id=50914392897 so I'm comfortable it is not related to this change. I do wonder when it regressed though. cc @marcpopMSFT |
|
/backport to release/10.0.1xx-rc2 |
|
Started backporting to release/10.0.1xx-rc2: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/actions/runs/17931765331 |
|
/backport to main |
|
Started backporting to main: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/actions/runs/18536167192 |
…ng (#120746) Backport of #120694 to release/10.0 In dotnet/sdk#50949 we changed the identity of StaticWebAsset to contain fingerprint (dotnet.native.wasm -> dotnet.native.FP.wasm). This PR accommodates this when checking for dotnet.native.wasm asset from build. The SDK change didn't flown to the runtime yet, and so Wasm.Build.Tests won't test it yet. Fixes dotnet/aspnetcore#64011 /cc @maraf ## Customer Impact - [ ] Customer reported - [x] Found internally [[Select one or both of the boxes. Describe how this issue impacts customers, citing the expected and actual behaviors and scope of the issue. If customer-reported, provide the issue number.]](dotnet/aspnetcore#64011) ## Regression - [x] Yes - [ ] No Introduced in dotnet/sdk#50949 which added a fingerprint to the msbuild item identity ## Testing Manual and automated tests. ## Risk Low. The change are very scoped to target and items used only by preloading. **IMPORTANT**: If this backport is for a servicing release, please verify that: - The PR target branch is `release/X.0-staging`, not `release/X.0`. ## Package authoring no longer needed in .NET 9 **IMPORTANT**: Starting with .NET 9, you no longer need to edit a NuGet package's csproj to enable building and bump the version. Keep in mind that we still need package authoring in .NET 8 and older versions. --------- Co-authored-by: Marek Fišera <mara@neptuo.com> Co-authored-by: Larry Ewing <lewing@microsoft.com>

[Blazor] Remove unnecessary update to the Blazor webassembly js file
Remove redundant blazor.webassembly.js update that broke publish
Description
Hosted webassembly apps failed to publish due to a bug in how we were trying to update the
blazor.webassembly.jsasset definition. We realized that we did not have to do so, but that there was a bug precluding us from finding the asset during the publish process.The fix corrects the identity of the blazor.webassembly.js to account for the fingerprint for the file we introduced in 10.0, which wasn't being taken into account.
Fixes #119886
Customer Impact
Customers with a hosted Blazor WebAssembly + Web API (Server) solution failed to publish. There is no straightforward user workaround short of editing writing a significant amount of MSBuild to work around the issue.
Regression?
Regressed from .NET 8 (publishing the same project type succeeded in 8.x).
Risk
Justification: The change only removes an unnecessary build step and fixes a case that was exclusively related to Blazor webassembly. It does not alter the contents of the delivered script, pipeline ordering, or introduce new logic— it simply stops creating an anomalous asset entry. Existing publish & static web asset tests still apply. Low surface area and isolated to Blazor WASM publish scenario.
Verification
Packaging changes reviewed?