Repository navigation
Reference Source repo: Resource string files missing #17174
Description
The resource file /src/System.ComponentModel.Annotations/src/Resources/Strings.resx is not part of Microsoft/referencesource which mono is using. As a result validation results on mono have the resource names being returned instead of the actual validation message. Running the same code on Windows returns proper validation messages.
Activity
ellismg commentedon May 1, 2016
/cc @richlander @terrajobst
[-]Resource string files missing in referencesource repo[/-][+]Reference Source: Resource string files missing in referencesource repo[/+][-]Reference Source: Resource string files missing in referencesource repo[/-][+]Reference Source repo: Resource string files missing[/+]divega commentedon Feb 10, 2017
@karelz not sure the area-System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations label is appropriate for this issue. Do you know who could actually help with getting the resx files into the reference source repo?
karelz commentedon Feb 10, 2017
Xamarin is now migrating to use CoreFX (sources now, binaries hopefully later).
@marek-safar, is it interesting/valuable for Xamarin to have the reference source fixed? Or would you rather close it and wait for the CoreFX consumption?
marek-safar commentedon Feb 11, 2017
I looked at System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations few days ago and it looks like we won't be able to use it for some time as it's missing quite few APIs and implementation dependencies in CoreFX compare to full .NET hence even though we'd love to use it we need to first put back code which was removed in CoreFX.
I'll try to use at least CoreFX resx files instead of referencesource to resolve this issue.
karelz commentedon Feb 11, 2017
@richlander @terrajobst what is the process for updating one file in https://github.com/Microsoft/referencesource?
If it is cheap, it might be easier to do that instead of asing @marek-safar to mix and match bits from various sources and then chase down differences later :(
divega commentedon Feb 13, 2017
@karelz it looks like this should probably be assigned to someone outside of our team to come to resolution. Will you figure out the right owner?
karelz commentedon Feb 13, 2017
@divega when we know who should do the work, I agree - right now we need to get traction on what needs to happen where, so keeping it in the feature area seems most logical (e.g. we might need your team to "approve" releasing the source code). Makes sense?
richlander commentedon Mar 8, 2017
@preetikr
lajones commentedon Apr 18, 2017
Ping... @karelz @richlander @preetikr
We are fine with releasing the resources. But we don't know who copies it into Microsoft/referencesource.
richlander commentedon Apr 19, 2017
Awesome. Will pass on ...
divega commentedon Apr 19, 2017
Clearing up milestone so that we can track this for now in our triage.
ajcvickers commentedon Feb 22, 2019
Removing this from data-annotations area because there is currently nothing actionable by the area owners. We would be happy to do the work here, but without clear guidance from people who know about these things there is nothing we can currently do. Also happy to close if the value is not high enough to get such guidance.
karelz commentedon Mar 29, 2019
@ajcvickers please always set new area label. Issues without area labels are not tracked and won't get any attention.
karelz commentedon Mar 29, 2019
This issue was moved to microsoft/referencesource#102
ajcvickers commentedon Mar 29, 2019
@karelz Sorry, I though that would trigger re-analysis of the area on your side. What's the best way to deal with an issue that seems to be in the wrong area if there is no other obvious area?
karelz commentedon Mar 29, 2019
@ajcvickers the best approach is to triage it. If it was misrouted to certain area, there is high likelyhood it would land there again from "general high-level" triage like I do. Area owners are expected to find better home for the issue. If not clear, you can always fall back to me for guidance / advice if it is a bit more esoteric (like this one with ReferenceSource).
ajcvickers commentedon Mar 29, 2019
@karelz Sounds good, thanks.