-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 833
Add optional keepAssemblyContents to ParseAndCheckInteraction #19155
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
@dotnet-policy-service agree company="IntelliFactory" |
|
This would be binary breaking. Which is not bad by default, just so it's a concious decision. |
|
@vzarytovskii I'm happy to make it non-breaking with an overload or differently named method ( |
Overload is usually good enough, but it's up to @T-Gro, if breaking change is fine or not. |
❗ Release notes requiredCaution No release notes found for the changed paths (see table below). Please make sure to add an entry with an informative description of the change as well as link to this pull request, issue and language suggestion if applicable. Release notes for this repository are based on Keep A Changelog format. The following format is recommended for this repository:
If you believe that release notes are not necessary for this PR, please add NO_RELEASE_NOTES label to the pull request. You can open this PR in browser to add release notes: open in github.dev
|
|
A sibling PR is removing switches for ML compat syntax anyway, so the upcoming FCS api will not be backwards compatible with the current one. |
Adding a new optional parameter
keepAssemblyContentstoFsiEvaluationSession.ParseAndCheckInteraction.This is a minor change that enables using an
fsisession and also doing full content analysis on entered interactions. I have used a local build of my changes to make a WebSharper-enabled interactive session.Question: would an overload be preferred instead of optional argument to keep binary compatibility? Or it's not a primary concern for FCS and code compatibility is enough?