Nightly build #628 for cordova has succeeded!
Nightly build #628 for cordova has succeeded! The latest nightly has been published and you can try it out with 'npm i -g cordova@nightly' For details check build console at https://builds.apache.org/job/cordova-nightly/628/consoleFull - Jenkins for Apache Cordova - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
I'm not sure they're what you're looking for but there are three version-related Windows preferences that seem to be supported in config.xml: value="10.0.14393.0" /> value="10.0.16299.125" /> Does one or more of these resolve this? -Terence On 2/9/2018 6:41 PM, Jesse wrote: Created an issue for making this configurable. CB-13862 @purplecabbage risingj.com On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Jesse wrote: All correct and I agree, except we do need to update TargetPlatformVersion pr here: https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/250 Please test this pr on your windows machine and make sure you can create and run a new cordova-windows project without having to modify the jsproj file manually. @purplecabbage risingj.com On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Jan Piotrowski wrote: Ok, so this version can be compared to the iOS or Android API version? Then it defintely makes sense to do some work to make this configurable in a better way in the future. Jesse, do you want to create the issue? You seem to have a specific idea already. To recap: - We think the test failure is a problem only happening on AppVeyor and should not affect actual users - We are ok with starting a 6.0.0 release with the current `master` state with this one failing test on AppVeyor - We "pledge" to further look into it and release 6.0.1 or 6.1.0 if we indeed find the solution Agree? If so, I will start the release process until Monday. J PS: I will contact AppVeyor to find out if they can maybe help - blocked file, maybe because of some other running process? 2018-02-09 23:13 GMT+01:00 Jesse : There is a list of the timeline for all relevant versions here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/updates-and-ver sions/choose-a-uwp-version There are 2 important values at play: Target Version : this should probably be the most recent release we support, probably 16299 Minimum Version : this should be as far back as we can go ... probably 10586 Ultimately we will need to add a method to configure these values via config.xml preferences, but I don't think we should wait for that to happen. Changing these values on my windows machine meant all the tests passed, I had failing tests using master as-is. The failing test on appveyor is something different related to environment I believe. Making these same changes that worked on my machine did not fix the fail on appveyor. I think we should go ahead with the 6.0.0 release, and plan to do a patch release in the near future when we work out the details of a configurable target/minimum version. @purplecabbage risingj.com On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Chris Brody wrote: On Feb 9, 2018 3:15 PM, "Jan Piotrowski" wrote: Jesse, they do - but I am not sure why. Problem is I don't fully understand what is going on there... which is why I am hesitant to just ignore it. Makes sense to me Chris, where and how exactly does one install the "target platform SDK"? Visual Studio 2017 comes with an installer program. It is possible to install an older platform SDK version but I do not want to do this on my PC. What happens if you do not change the `TargetPlatformVersion` manually but have only that one installed? I would get an error message that the needed platform SDK version does not exist. VS2017 did not exist at the time of the last release (or at least nobody cared) so CI didn't use it to test. Makes sense This should have been added earlier, but I only added it 3 weeks ago with https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/commit/ f5f4b21ad2c030ff61550bc947dca196c570f0ad - which then showed this bug. Good work on your part (If any of the other failures that were then fixes also were caused only by VS2017 I can not say unfortunately) It would be nice to investigate and test this, if anyone has the time for it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
Created an issue for making this configurable. CB-13862 @purplecabbage risingj.com On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Jesse wrote: > All correct and I agree, except we do need to update TargetPlatformVersion > pr here: https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/250 > Please test this pr on your windows machine and make sure you can create > and run a new cordova-windows project without having to modify the jsproj > file manually. > > > @purplecabbage > risingj.com > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Jan Piotrowski > wrote: > >> Ok, so this version can be compared to the iOS or Android API version? >> Then it defintely makes sense to do some work to make this >> configurable in a better way in the future. >> Jesse, do you want to create the issue? You seem to have a specific >> idea already. >> >> To recap: >> - We think the test failure is a problem only happening on AppVeyor >> and should not affect actual users >> - We are ok with starting a 6.0.0 release with the current `master` >> state with this one failing test on AppVeyor >> - We "pledge" to further look into it and release 6.0.1 or 6.1.0 if we >> indeed find the solution >> >> Agree? >> >> If so, I will start the release process until Monday. >> >> J >> >> PS: I will contact AppVeyor to find out if they can maybe help - >> blocked file, maybe because of some other running process? >> >> >> >> >> 2018-02-09 23:13 GMT+01:00 Jesse : >> > There is a list of the timeline for all relevant versions here: >> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/updates-and-ver >> sions/choose-a-uwp-version >> > >> > There are 2 important values at play: >> > Target Version : this should probably be the most recent release we >> > support, probably 16299 >> > Minimum Version : this should be as far back as we can go ... >> > probably 10586 >> > >> > Ultimately we will need to add a method to configure these values via >> > config.xml preferences, but I don't think we should wait for that to >> happen. >> > >> > Changing these values on my windows machine meant all the tests passed, >> I >> > had failing tests using master as-is. >> > >> > The failing test on appveyor is something different related to >> environment >> > I believe. Making these same changes that worked on my machine did not >> fix >> > the fail on appveyor. >> > >> > I think we should go ahead with the 6.0.0 release, and plan to do a >> patch >> > release in the near future when we work out the details of a >> configurable >> > target/minimum version. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > @purplecabbage >> > risingj.com >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Chris Brody >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Feb 9, 2018 3:15 PM, "Jan Piotrowski" wrote: >> >> >> >> Jesse, they do - but I am not sure why. Problem is I don't fully >> >> understand what is going on there... which is why I am hesitant to >> >> just ignore it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Makes sense to me >> >> >> >> >> >> Chris, where and how exactly does one install the "target platform >> SDK"? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Visual Studio 2017 comes with an installer program. It is possible to >> >> install an older platform SDK version but I do not want to do this on >> my >> >> PC. >> >> >> >> >> >> What happens if you do not change the `TargetPlatformVersion` manually >> >> but have only that one installed? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would get an error message that the needed platform SDK version does >> not >> >> exist. >> >> >> >> >> >> VS2017 did not exist at the time of the last release (or at least >> >> nobody cared) so CI didn't use it to test. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Makes sense >> >> >> >> >> >> This should have been added >> >> earlier, but I only added it 3 weeks ago with >> >> https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/commit/ >> >> f5f4b21ad2c030ff61550bc947dca196c570f0ad >> >> - which then showed this bug. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Good work on your part >> >> >> >> >> >> (If any of the other failures that were >> >> then fixes also were caused only by VS2017 I can not say >> >> unfortunately) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be nice to investigate and test this, if anyone has the time >> for >> >> it. >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org >> >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
All correct and I agree, except we do need to update TargetPlatformVersion pr here: https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/250 Please test this pr on your windows machine and make sure you can create and run a new cordova-windows project without having to modify the jsproj file manually. @purplecabbage risingj.com On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Jan Piotrowski wrote: > Ok, so this version can be compared to the iOS or Android API version? > Then it defintely makes sense to do some work to make this > configurable in a better way in the future. > Jesse, do you want to create the issue? You seem to have a specific > idea already. > > To recap: > - We think the test failure is a problem only happening on AppVeyor > and should not affect actual users > - We are ok with starting a 6.0.0 release with the current `master` > state with this one failing test on AppVeyor > - We "pledge" to further look into it and release 6.0.1 or 6.1.0 if we > indeed find the solution > > Agree? > > If so, I will start the release process until Monday. > > J > > PS: I will contact AppVeyor to find out if they can maybe help - > blocked file, maybe because of some other running process? > > > > > 2018-02-09 23:13 GMT+01:00 Jesse : > > There is a list of the timeline for all relevant versions here: > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/updates-and- > versions/choose-a-uwp-version > > > > There are 2 important values at play: > > Target Version : this should probably be the most recent release we > > support, probably 16299 > > Minimum Version : this should be as far back as we can go ... > > probably 10586 > > > > Ultimately we will need to add a method to configure these values via > > config.xml preferences, but I don't think we should wait for that to > happen. > > > > Changing these values on my windows machine meant all the tests passed, I > > had failing tests using master as-is. > > > > The failing test on appveyor is something different related to > environment > > I believe. Making these same changes that worked on my machine did not > fix > > the fail on appveyor. > > > > I think we should go ahead with the 6.0.0 release, and plan to do a patch > > release in the near future when we work out the details of a configurable > > target/minimum version. > > > > > > > > > > > > @purplecabbage > > risingj.com > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Chris Brody > wrote: > > > >> On Feb 9, 2018 3:15 PM, "Jan Piotrowski" wrote: > >> > >> Jesse, they do - but I am not sure why. Problem is I don't fully > >> understand what is going on there... which is why I am hesitant to > >> just ignore it. > >> > >> > >> > >> Makes sense to me > >> > >> > >> Chris, where and how exactly does one install the "target platform SDK"? > >> > >> > >> > >> Visual Studio 2017 comes with an installer program. It is possible to > >> install an older platform SDK version but I do not want to do this on my > >> PC. > >> > >> > >> What happens if you do not change the `TargetPlatformVersion` manually > >> but have only that one installed? > >> > >> > >> > >> I would get an error message that the needed platform SDK version does > not > >> exist. > >> > >> > >> VS2017 did not exist at the time of the last release (or at least > >> nobody cared) so CI didn't use it to test. > >> > >> > >> > >> Makes sense > >> > >> > >> This should have been added > >> earlier, but I only added it 3 weeks ago with > >> https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/commit/ > >> f5f4b21ad2c030ff61550bc947dca196c570f0ad > >> - which then showed this bug. > >> > >> > >> > >> Good work on your part > >> > >> > >> (If any of the other failures that were > >> then fixes also were caused only by VS2017 I can not say > >> unfortunately) > >> > >> > >> > >> It would be nice to investigate and test this, if anyone has the time > for > >> it. > >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
Ok, so this version can be compared to the iOS or Android API version? Then it defintely makes sense to do some work to make this configurable in a better way in the future. Jesse, do you want to create the issue? You seem to have a specific idea already. To recap: - We think the test failure is a problem only happening on AppVeyor and should not affect actual users - We are ok with starting a 6.0.0 release with the current `master` state with this one failing test on AppVeyor - We "pledge" to further look into it and release 6.0.1 or 6.1.0 if we indeed find the solution Agree? If so, I will start the release process until Monday. J PS: I will contact AppVeyor to find out if they can maybe help - blocked file, maybe because of some other running process? 2018-02-09 23:13 GMT+01:00 Jesse : > There is a list of the timeline for all relevant versions here: > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/updates-and-versions/choose-a-uwp-version > > There are 2 important values at play: > Target Version : this should probably be the most recent release we > support, probably 16299 > Minimum Version : this should be as far back as we can go ... > probably 10586 > > Ultimately we will need to add a method to configure these values via > config.xml preferences, but I don't think we should wait for that to happen. > > Changing these values on my windows machine meant all the tests passed, I > had failing tests using master as-is. > > The failing test on appveyor is something different related to environment > I believe. Making these same changes that worked on my machine did not fix > the fail on appveyor. > > I think we should go ahead with the 6.0.0 release, and plan to do a patch > release in the near future when we work out the details of a configurable > target/minimum version. > > > > > > @purplecabbage > risingj.com > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Chris Brody wrote: > >> On Feb 9, 2018 3:15 PM, "Jan Piotrowski" wrote: >> >> Jesse, they do - but I am not sure why. Problem is I don't fully >> understand what is going on there... which is why I am hesitant to >> just ignore it. >> >> >> >> Makes sense to me >> >> >> Chris, where and how exactly does one install the "target platform SDK"? >> >> >> >> Visual Studio 2017 comes with an installer program. It is possible to >> install an older platform SDK version but I do not want to do this on my >> PC. >> >> >> What happens if you do not change the `TargetPlatformVersion` manually >> but have only that one installed? >> >> >> >> I would get an error message that the needed platform SDK version does not >> exist. >> >> >> VS2017 did not exist at the time of the last release (or at least >> nobody cared) so CI didn't use it to test. >> >> >> >> Makes sense >> >> >> This should have been added >> earlier, but I only added it 3 weeks ago with >> https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/commit/ >> f5f4b21ad2c030ff61550bc947dca196c570f0ad >> - which then showed this bug. >> >> >> >> Good work on your part >> >> >> (If any of the other failures that were >> then fixes also were caused only by VS2017 I can not say >> unfortunately) >> >> >> >> It would be nice to investigate and test this, if anyone has the time for >> it. >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
There is a list of the timeline for all relevant versions here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/updates-and-versions/choose-a-uwp-version There are 2 important values at play: Target Version : this should probably be the most recent release we support, probably 16299 Minimum Version : this should be as far back as we can go ... probably 10586 Ultimately we will need to add a method to configure these values via config.xml preferences, but I don't think we should wait for that to happen. Changing these values on my windows machine meant all the tests passed, I had failing tests using master as-is. The failing test on appveyor is something different related to environment I believe. Making these same changes that worked on my machine did not fix the fail on appveyor. I think we should go ahead with the 6.0.0 release, and plan to do a patch release in the near future when we work out the details of a configurable target/minimum version. @purplecabbage risingj.com On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Chris Brody wrote: > On Feb 9, 2018 3:15 PM, "Jan Piotrowski" wrote: > > Jesse, they do - but I am not sure why. Problem is I don't fully > understand what is going on there... which is why I am hesitant to > just ignore it. > > > > Makes sense to me > > > Chris, where and how exactly does one install the "target platform SDK"? > > > > Visual Studio 2017 comes with an installer program. It is possible to > install an older platform SDK version but I do not want to do this on my > PC. > > > What happens if you do not change the `TargetPlatformVersion` manually > but have only that one installed? > > > > I would get an error message that the needed platform SDK version does not > exist. > > > VS2017 did not exist at the time of the last release (or at least > nobody cared) so CI didn't use it to test. > > > > Makes sense > > > This should have been added > earlier, but I only added it 3 weeks ago with > https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/commit/ > f5f4b21ad2c030ff61550bc947dca196c570f0ad > - which then showed this bug. > > > > Good work on your part > > > (If any of the other failures that were > then fixes also were caused only by VS2017 I can not say > unfortunately) > > > > It would be nice to investigate and test this, if anyone has the time for > it. >
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
On Feb 9, 2018 3:15 PM, "Jan Piotrowski" wrote: Jesse, they do - but I am not sure why. Problem is I don't fully understand what is going on there... which is why I am hesitant to just ignore it. Makes sense to me Chris, where and how exactly does one install the "target platform SDK"? Visual Studio 2017 comes with an installer program. It is possible to install an older platform SDK version but I do not want to do this on my PC. What happens if you do not change the `TargetPlatformVersion` manually but have only that one installed? I would get an error message that the needed platform SDK version does not exist. VS2017 did not exist at the time of the last release (or at least nobody cared) so CI didn't use it to test. Makes sense This should have been added earlier, but I only added it 3 weeks ago with https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/commit/ f5f4b21ad2c030ff61550bc947dca196c570f0ad - which then showed this bug. Good work on your part (If any of the other failures that were then fixes also were caused only by VS2017 I can not say unfortunately) It would be nice to investigate and test this, if anyone has the time for it.
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
Jesse, they do - but I am not sure why. Problem is I don't fully understand what is going on there... which is why I am hesitant to just ignore it. > The tests pass on my machine if I would change to 10.0.15063.0 (I don't have the old target platform SDK installed with VS 2017 and don't intend to add it there) Chris, where and how exactly does one install the "target platform SDK"? What happens if you do not change the `TargetPlatformVersion` manually but have only that one installed? > It is though the AppVeyor tests that Jan already discovered some fixes that were needed for VS 2017, if I am not mistaken. @Jan can you explain this further or am I mistaken somehow? VS2017 did not exist at the time of the last release (or at least nobody cared) so CI didn't use it to test. This should have been added earlier, but I only added it 3 weeks ago with https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/commit/f5f4b21ad2c030ff61550bc947dca196c570f0ad - which then showed this bug. (If any of the other failures that were then fixes also were caused only by VS2017 I can not say unfortunately) J 2018-02-09 17:24 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : > P.S. I would not favor making a major version release before resolving the > CI issue on AppVeyor somehow. It is though the AppVeyor tests that Jan > already discovered some fixes that were needed for VS 2017, if I am not > mistaken. @Jan can you explain this further or am I mistaken somehow? > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Chris Brody wrote: > >> The tests pass on my machine if I would change to >> 10.0.15063.0 (I don't have the old target platform SDK installed with VS >> 2017 and don't intend to add it there) >> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Jesse wrote: >> >>> Do the tests pass on your machines? If so, I think we should move forward >>> with the 6.0.0 release, and write this off as a CI environment issue. >>> >>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Jan Piotrowski wrote: >>> >>> >> I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, >>> considering >>> >> that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. >>> > >>> > No. "Breaking" (in context of semver) refers to changing existing >>> > functionality to not work any more or work differently. >>> > CB-12499 just seems "broken" right now. >>> > >>> > It introduces a new file and "link" to it in the Win10 project template: >>> > https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/228/files And that file >>> is >>> > now causing issues with the test run with VS2017 on AppVeyor. >>> > >>> > We now just have to get the test working and pass or revert that change >>> for >>> > now because we can't get it to work properly. >>> > (In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13834 I mentioned the 2 >>> people >>> > involved in merging that functionality, maybe they can say more about it >>> > over there). >>> > >>> >> All tests are enabled now right? >>> >> Or am I mistaken? >>> > >>> > Yes. >>> > No. >>> > >>> > -J >>> > >>> > >>> > 2018-02-09 15:36 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : >>> > >>> >> I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, >>> considering >>> >> that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. >>> >> >>> >> All tests are enabled now right? Or am I mistaken? >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Jan Piotrowski >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> All that change existing functionality a user could depend on. >>> >>> >>> >>> In this case: >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13237 >>> >>> Possibly also the ones disabling the tests (which happened before that >>> >> one, >>> >>> otherwise this would have been caught) >>> >>> >>> >>> J >>> >>> >>> >>> 2018-02-08 17:06 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : >>> >>> >>> Can someone explain exactly which changes in the master branch should >>> >> be >>> considered "breaking"? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org >>> >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
P.S. I would not favor making a major version release before resolving the CI issue on AppVeyor somehow. It is though the AppVeyor tests that Jan already discovered some fixes that were needed for VS 2017, if I am not mistaken. @Jan can you explain this further or am I mistaken somehow? On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Chris Brody wrote: > The tests pass on my machine if I would change to > 10.0.15063.0 (I don't have the old target platform SDK installed with VS > 2017 and don't intend to add it there) > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Jesse wrote: > >> Do the tests pass on your machines? If so, I think we should move forward >> with the 6.0.0 release, and write this off as a CI environment issue. >> >> On Feb 9, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Jan Piotrowski wrote: >> >> >> I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, >> considering >> >> that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. >> > >> > No. "Breaking" (in context of semver) refers to changing existing >> > functionality to not work any more or work differently. >> > CB-12499 just seems "broken" right now. >> > >> > It introduces a new file and "link" to it in the Win10 project template: >> > https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/228/files And that file >> is >> > now causing issues with the test run with VS2017 on AppVeyor. >> > >> > We now just have to get the test working and pass or revert that change >> for >> > now because we can't get it to work properly. >> > (In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13834 I mentioned the 2 >> people >> > involved in merging that functionality, maybe they can say more about it >> > over there). >> > >> >> All tests are enabled now right? >> >> Or am I mistaken? >> > >> > Yes. >> > No. >> > >> > -J >> > >> > >> > 2018-02-09 15:36 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : >> > >> >> I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, >> considering >> >> that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. >> >> >> >> All tests are enabled now right? Or am I mistaken? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Jan Piotrowski >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> All that change existing functionality a user could depend on. >> >>> >> >>> In this case: >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13237 >> >>> Possibly also the ones disabling the tests (which happened before that >> >> one, >> >>> otherwise this would have been caught) >> >>> >> >>> J >> >>> >> >>> 2018-02-08 17:06 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : >> >>> >> Can someone explain exactly which changes in the master branch should >> >> be >> considered "breaking"? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org >> >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
The tests pass on my machine if I would change to 10.0.15063.0 (I don't have the old target platform SDK installed with VS 2017 and don't intend to add it there) On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Jesse wrote: > Do the tests pass on your machines? If so, I think we should move forward > with the 6.0.0 release, and write this off as a CI environment issue. > > On Feb 9, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Jan Piotrowski wrote: > > >> I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, considering > >> that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. > > > > No. "Breaking" (in context of semver) refers to changing existing > > functionality to not work any more or work differently. > > CB-12499 just seems "broken" right now. > > > > It introduces a new file and "link" to it in the Win10 project template: > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/228/files And that file > is > > now causing issues with the test run with VS2017 on AppVeyor. > > > > We now just have to get the test working and pass or revert that change > for > > now because we can't get it to work properly. > > (In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13834 I mentioned the 2 > people > > involved in merging that functionality, maybe they can say more about it > > over there). > > > >> All tests are enabled now right? > >> Or am I mistaken? > > > > Yes. > > No. > > > > -J > > > > > > 2018-02-09 15:36 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : > > > >> I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, considering > >> that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. > >> > >> All tests are enabled now right? Or am I mistaken? > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Jan Piotrowski > >> wrote: > >> > >>> All that change existing functionality a user could depend on. > >>> > >>> In this case: > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13237 > >>> Possibly also the ones disabling the tests (which happened before that > >> one, > >>> otherwise this would have been caught) > >>> > >>> J > >>> > >>> 2018-02-08 17:06 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : > >>> > Can someone explain exactly which changes in the master branch should > >> be > considered "breaking"? > > >>> > >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
Do the tests pass on your machines? If so, I think we should move forward with the 6.0.0 release, and write this off as a CI environment issue. On Feb 9, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Jan Piotrowski wrote: >> I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, considering >> that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. > > No. "Breaking" (in context of semver) refers to changing existing > functionality to not work any more or work differently. > CB-12499 just seems "broken" right now. > > It introduces a new file and "link" to it in the Win10 project template: > https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/228/files And that file is > now causing issues with the test run with VS2017 on AppVeyor. > > We now just have to get the test working and pass or revert that change for > now because we can't get it to work properly. > (In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13834 I mentioned the 2 people > involved in merging that functionality, maybe they can say more about it > over there). > >> All tests are enabled now right? >> Or am I mistaken? > > Yes. > No. > > -J > > > 2018-02-09 15:36 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : > >> I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, considering >> that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. >> >> All tests are enabled now right? Or am I mistaken? >> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Jan Piotrowski >> wrote: >> >>> All that change existing functionality a user could depend on. >>> >>> In this case: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13237 >>> Possibly also the ones disabling the tests (which happened before that >> one, >>> otherwise this would have been caught) >>> >>> J >>> >>> 2018-02-08 17:06 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : >>> Can someone explain exactly which changes in the master branch should >> be considered "breaking"? >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
> I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, considering > that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. No. "Breaking" (in context of semver) refers to changing existing functionality to not work any more or work differently. CB-12499 just seems "broken" right now. It introduces a new file and "link" to it in the Win10 project template: https://github.com/apache/cordova-windows/pull/228/files And that file is now causing issues with the test run with VS2017 on AppVeyor. We now just have to get the test working and pass or revert that change for now because we can't get it to work properly. (In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13834 I mentioned the 2 people involved in merging that functionality, maybe they can say more about it over there). > All tests are enabled now right? > Or am I mistaken? Yes. No. -J 2018-02-09 15:36 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : > I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, considering > that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. > > All tests are enabled now right? Or am I mistaken? > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Jan Piotrowski > wrote: > > > All that change existing functionality a user could depend on. > > > > In this case: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13237 > > Possibly also the ones disabling the tests (which happened before that > one, > > otherwise this would have been caught) > > > > J > > > > 2018-02-08 17:06 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : > > > > > Can someone explain exactly which changes in the master branch should > be > > > considered "breaking"? > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Cordova-Windows 6.0.0
I wonder if we should also consider CB-12499 to be breaking, considering that Default.rd.xml triggers the test failure on AppVeyor. All tests are enabled now right? Or am I mistaken? On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Jan Piotrowski wrote: > All that change existing functionality a user could depend on. > > In this case: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-13237 > Possibly also the ones disabling the tests (which happened before that one, > otherwise this would have been caught) > > J > > 2018-02-08 17:06 GMT+01:00 Chris Brody : > > > Can someone explain exactly which changes in the master branch should be > > considered "breaking"? > > >
