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

RequiresAssemblyFilesAttribute error code and messages #1786

Closed
MichalStrehovsky opened this issue Jan 28, 2021 · 6 comments
Closed

RequiresAssemblyFilesAttribute error code and messages #1786

MichalStrehovsky opened this issue Jan 28, 2021 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@MichalStrehovsky
Copy link
Member

I had a look at #1722 because I wanted to steal stuff from it for NativeAOT, but it's missing some important things.

  • The error message is missing:

https://github.com/mono/linker/blob/92b9b51bb8548320e40fc432efcb395156ad1445/src/ILLink.RoslynAnalyzer/Resources.resx#L138-L142

@agocke
Copy link
Member

agocke commented Jan 28, 2021

@tlakollo Can you pick this up? I think writing a resource message is the highest priority. Right now the analyzer doesn't really print anything.

@tlakollo
Copy link
Contributor

So far I created a PR that includes a default message and the arguments.
Seems like other error codes have a help link uri like in #1736, not sure if we need one for IL3002
Also not sure if we are not including the IL3XXX codes in the master error code registry in order to not confuse with other linker codes and patterns.

@mateoatr
Copy link
Contributor

Also not sure if we are not including the IL3XXX codes in the master error code registry in order to not confuse with other linker codes and patterns

We should at least link to IL3000 and IL3001 (#1498 (comment)). Also, I think we should create a similar docs page for IL3002 once we decide on a specific message.

@MichalStrehovsky
Copy link
Member Author

If we expect that illink will eventually also have analysis for single-file friendliness, this is a illink error code like any other. The user doesn't care what tool produced the warning if the fix is the same. We want the codes to be same so that suppressions work the same way (if I suppress the warning in the analyzer, I really don't want yet another warning for the same problem from illink).

If we don't expect this functionality to ever converge with illink, we should have chosen a different prefix.

@agocke
Copy link
Member

agocke commented Jan 29, 2021

If we don't expect this functionality to ever converge with illink, we should have chosen a different prefix.

I'm not sure exactly what tool will perform the analysis, but I do assume that the linker or something else will produce single-file analysis as well.

@tlakollo
Copy link
Contributor

Closing via #1790

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants