Skip to content

Fix binary incompatibility introduced by 4.4.0 #582

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
zhiyuanliang-ms merged 1 commit into from
Mar 4, 2026
Merged

Fix binary incompatibility introduced by 4.4.0 #582

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 9 additions & 1 deletion src/Microsoft.FeatureManagement/ConfigurationFeatureDefinitionProvider.cs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -34,14 +34,22 @@ public sealed class ConfigurationFeatureDefinitionProvider : IFeatureDefinitionP

const string ParseValueErrorString = "Invalid setting '{0}' with value '{1}' for feature '{2}'.";

/// <summary>
/// Creates a configuration feature definition provider.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="configuration">The configuration of feature definitions.</param>
public ConfigurationFeatureDefinitionProvider(IConfiguration configuration) : this(configuration, null)
{
}

/// <summary>
/// Creates a configuration feature definition provider.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="configuration">The configuration of feature definitions.</param>
/// <param name="options">The options for the configuration feature definition provider.</param>
public ConfigurationFeatureDefinitionProvider(
IConfiguration configuration,
ConfigurationFeatureDefinitionProviderOptions options = null)
ConfigurationFeatureDefinitionProviderOptions options)
Copy link
Member

@zhiyuanliang-ms zhiyuanliang-ms Mar 3, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you please add a test to verify that DI will pick the ctor with most parameters?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@richardszalay richardszalay Mar 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think that's necessary, for two reasons:

  1. The library doesn't rely on DI (ref) to construct ConfigurationFeatureDefinitionProviderOptions - it always new's it up inline
  2. The MS DI Constructor selection rules are quite clear: the constructor with the most arguments is used

Copy link
Member

@zhiyuanliang-ms zhiyuanliang-ms Mar 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Make sense!

Copy link
Member

@jimmyca15 jimmyca15 Mar 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Referencing implementation shouldn't be used to justify tests. Otherwise, we wouldn't need tests, we could just say look at the code, it works.

The thing that needs coverage is if ConfigurationFeatureDefinitionProviderOptions are registered, then they are respected.

@zhiyuanliang-ms , I believe that's covered here, can you confirm?

Copy link
Member

@zhiyuanliang-ms zhiyuanliang-ms Mar 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

confirmed

{
_configuration = configuration ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(configuration));
_options = options ?? new ConfigurationFeatureDefinitionProviderOptions();
Expand Down
Loading