-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5k
Mark the new tensor APIs as experimental for .NET 9 #105268
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
Merged
tannergooding
merged 7 commits into
dotnet:main
from
tannergooding:tensors-experimental
Jul 24, 2024
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7e9e36b
Mark the new tensor APIs as experimental for .NET 9
tannergooding 85c2c9a
Apply SNTEXP0001 to other internal API
ericstj 6a66f6e
Suppress SNTEXP0001 in System.Numerics.Tensors.Tests
ericstj 754ba62
Use SYSLIB5001. Central registration of experimental API diagnostic ids.
jeffhandley 2abdd18
Add Experimentals.cs (missed in prior commit)
jeffhandley b4baee9
Revert SLN changes. Add UrlFormat property to attributes where missing.
jeffhandley 5bb1e6e
Ensure the net8 tensors tests also don't warn for the experimental AP…
tannergooding File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CC. @terrajobst, I don't think we have an existing format for these. So I've somewhat just followed what some other users (ASP.NET/Azure) are doing here.
Namely,
SNT
forSystem.Numerics.Tensors
, thenEXP
forExperimental
, then0001
since this is the first ID.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The wording we get from this resembles:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@terrajobst Should we instead use
SYSLIB5###
to follow suit of Obsoletions (SYSLIB0###
) and Analyzers (SYSLIB1###
) and leave plenty of room for analyzers?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should stick to
SYSLIB
for all diagnostics (obsoletions, experimental, and analyzers).My concern with having separate prefixes is that it will be very inconsistent across all the parties. It's hard enough to come up with a prefix that is short enough and identifies a single party that can keep track of the numbers to avoid duplicates. Asking folks to have separate prefixes for obsoletions, experimental, and general purposes analyzers and have that scheme make sense across all parties, is a bit too much IMHO. And frankly it doesn't seem to add much more value to the consumer as the way a given diagnostic needs to be addressed often differs between different cases within the same category anyway. So the expectation is: read the message and follow the link if you need more information.
I don't have strong opinions on whether we should use numeric ranges for the different categories; if having separate ranges makes our lives easier (or is more consistent with what we have done before), then let's do that. If not, I don't think it's worth introducing though.