Matthew/Jon, could you please comment on the API break? Regarding the tests: it seems we don't run the Mono.Options tests in CI... Probably a bad oversight that I'll fix as soon as the tests are building again, thanks for the heads up!
- Alex > On 1 May 2017, at 22:09, Vincent Povirk <madewokh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The Mono.Options tests no longer compile for the net_4_x profile after > this commit: > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmono%2Fmono%2Fcommit%2F7e2571ed334e9cee3f0d3bafeef02852310f4d3b&data=02%7C01%7Calkpli%40microsoft.com%7C08cdb7d2feb34f1d053308d490ce02b2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636292661872592866&sdata=Y01VpKgfUGWxQHpyWDvk1xYagYNY%2BKId3Plebl7%2FuVk%3D&reserved=0 > > This is because the test depends on the constructor that was removed. > I don't think the test should be changed because it correctly > indicates that the API was broken. > > I have 2 questions. > > 1. Was there any good reason to change the existing constructor in the > net_4_x profile? > > After the commit, we still have a constructor that provides the > functionality that's missing from PCL, in the net_4_x profile. So why > switch to doing it in a different way? > > 2. Why didn't continuous integration catch this? > > The test isn't even failing, it's not building at all. This shouldn't > be difficult for an automated system to notice. > _______________________________________________ > Mono-devel-list mailing list > Mono-devel-list@lists.dot.net > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.dot.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmono-devel-list&data=02%7C01%7Calkpli%40microsoft.com%7C08cdb7d2feb34f1d053308d490ce02b2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636292661872592866&sdata=0KRC%2FnuwGfeffn5YmKRuOH%2FHEBZB876cpYHwRG9dnPY%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.dot.net http://lists.dot.net/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
