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

Upgrade to .NET 9 #360

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Upgrade to .NET 9 #360

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

BNAndras
Copy link
Member

See exercism/vbnet-test-runner#49 and https://forum.exercism.org/t/upgrade-to-net-9/15843/2. This should be merged in tandem with the test runner PR.

The first commit standardizes vbprojs and bumps the package versions to match what the test runner will use.

The second commit resolves an XUnit bug where arrays can't be directly compared with Assert.Equal for VB.

The third commit flips the expected and actual argument order for Bob.

The fourth commit resolves an ambiguous match exception for comparing two strings. That only affects Bob and Two-Fer for some reason, but I needed to chose a more specific overload. I chose the one that takes a Boolean to set whether case should be ignored.

Copy link

This PR touches files which potentially affect the outcome of the tests of an exercise. This will cause all students' solutions to affected exercises to be re-tested.

If this PR does not affect the result of the test (or, for example, adds an edge case that is not worth rerunning all tests for), please add the following to the merge-commit message which will stops student's tests from re-running. Please copy-paste to avoid typos.

[no important files changed]

For more information, refer to the documentation. If you are unsure whether to add the message or not, please ping @exercism/maintainers-admin in a comment. Thank you!

@BNAndras
Copy link
Member Author

@ErikSchierboom, no rush but as the .NET expert around here, do the second and fourth commits make sense to you? Or should I try something else to resolve the issues?

@ErikSchierboom
Copy link
Member

For the first one, I'm not sure I like that approach as it is unclear to me what's happening. Maybe either extract the expected value to a variable or cast it to a string?

For the second one I'd probably have gone the route of specifying the type for the expected variable, but it's fine.

@ErikSchierboom
Copy link
Member

I've left some comments on the test runner PR.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants