Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1359 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 35.22% 37.45% +2.22%
==========================================
Files 149 155 +6
Lines 35786 36484 +698
==========================================
+ Hits 12607 13664 +1057
+ Misses 22883 22466 -417
- Partials 296 354 +58 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
@StefH, some feedback:
|
|
Thanks for your response. About 1: WireMock.Net is mostly used in unit tests. So how many % of those unit tests project are going to use an older framework like the one you mentioned? I think that supporting older frameworks in a main project and testing this in a unit test project is related but not always 1 to 1.... I will think on this and maybe support that one instead of 4.8 About 2: the question is how critical any security issue is because WireMock is used for testing, not for production code. |
It will be great. I have had similar discussions about other, testing only library - Verify. After 1,5 year author bringed back support for this old framework. I think that the requestor was .NET team.
I think that here are 2 aspects to consider: .NET SDK 9 for first release switchted settings to (then it was rollbacked, but some project kept it in place). I am not sure what is the current state: <PropertyGroup>
<NuGetAudit>true</NuGetAudit>
<NuGetAuditMode>all</NuGetAuditMode>
<NuGetAuditLevel>low</NuGetAuditLevel>
</PropertyGroup>With this + treat warnings as errors, which is pretty common, at least in my buble, it leads to the breaking compilation. Usually, there is a possibility to fix such changes basicaly by bumping transitive packages, but it is just inconvinient. IMO it is better to fix such cases centrally, The second aspect are security scans. I will consider OpenTelemetry as an example. Some end-users/companies making additional source code scans, not only shipped libraries. If we have any known vulnerable dependencies, there are at least yellow flags and we need to explain that the production code is not affected. With this, this project has strict rules to fix all such warnings. Thanks for maintaining this library, I know that it takes more time than people usually thinks. |
|
@Kielek |
|
That's fine, I think that I will need to create some simplified version of this package tailored to our usecase. |
Run TUnitTests first before other test steps to avoid apphost generation race during incremental rebuilds. Also add .NET 8 setup on Windows and use --project syntax consistently. Aligned with wiremock#1359.
Version 2.x supports: