Skip to content

Conversation

@stefannikolei
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.


Assert.Equal(0, count);
Assert.Equal([], output);
Assert.Equal(Array.Empty<byte>(), output);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We shouldn’t need to do this. Might be something to do with breaking changes re span overloads though.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah that came from new overloads

@stefannikolei
Copy link
Contributor Author

I got some problems on my machine.. One with libgdiplus and all the tests that use System.Drawing as a reference.

The other is a Tiff test. --> #3017 When I use a tolerant comparer the test is green.

Now I am only struggling with the FeatureTestRunner. Now going to look into it

@stefannikolei
Copy link
Contributor Author

I got some problems on my machine.. One with libgdiplus and all the tests that use System.Drawing as a reference.

The other is a Tiff test. --> #3017 When I use a tolerant comparer the test is green.

Now I am only struggling with the FeatureTestRunner. Now going to look into it

Tried to debug it on my side. On my machine DOTNET_EnableArm64AdvSimd=0 seems to not work. And on CI/CD we have a problem with DisableSSE ....

strange...

@stefannikolei
Copy link
Contributor Author

I made a small repro and created an issue for this in the runtime repo

dotnet/runtime#121685

@stefannikolei
Copy link
Contributor Author

I made a small repro and created an issue for this in the runtime repo

dotnet/runtime#121685

@JimBobSquarePants I got an answer there. The grouping changed and you can now only disable groups and not the individual ones..

What is your favorite way to go on with this? Introduce many #if NET10_0_OR_GREATER in the test code. Or disable the groups for net8 and net10?

@stefannikolei stefannikolei marked this pull request as ready for review November 21, 2025 13:24
@JimBobSquarePants JimBobSquarePants merged commit 672d788 into SixLabors:main Nov 22, 2025
14 checks passed
<Choose>
<When Condition="$(SIXLABORS_TESTING_PREVIEW) == true">
<PropertyGroup>
<TargetFrameworks>net8.0;net9.0</TargetFrameworks>
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@JimBobSquarePants Should we add .net10.0 to the "Otherwise" section too? So the next release would be build against both LTS versions of .NET?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, just 8. I want to always target a single framework

@silkfire
Copy link

silkfire commented Dec 11, 2025

@stefannikolei @JimBobSquarePants When can we expect this to be released?

@stefannikolei
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stefannikolei @JimBobSquarePants When can we expect this to be released?

You can use it today. Nothing stops you. This PR just enables testing against net10. You can always use a lib which targets a lower tfm. Just not the other way

@silkfire
Copy link

I'm just concerned that the current version of ImageSharp targets .NET 6 which is EOL. A bump to 8 or 10 would be appreciated.

@tocsoft
Copy link
Member

tocsoft commented Dec 11, 2025

@silkfire that's not how nuget packages work the Target version of a package is the minimum version of the runtime we are compatible with and nothing to do with what version we run on (which is what the MS supported version stuff is about) that's based entirely on the version you target to compile/deploy your application against.

In conclusion targets in nuget pacakges are about api compatibility only. Microsofts supported version of dotnet is about where you target/run your app and unrelated to this.

This is true for all nuget packages btw not just ours.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants