Fix dotnet format failure to handle slnx files

[sharwell]

This is a follow-up to #45442.

Currently dotnet format throws an exception instead of completing when a user explicitly specifies a .slnx-format solution file to format. The previous work in #45442 to add support for this format only covered the case where a directory was specified. Customers who prefer to be explicit, and/or customers that have more than one solution file in the same folder, will not be able to use dotnet format to format a .slnx solution without this fix.

This is not a regression, but rather completes the implementation behavior intended to be included in this release with the earlier pull request.

The risk involved in this change is very low.

Fixes #47038

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR fixes an issue where dotnet-format failed to handle .slnx files by updating the condition that determines if a file is a solution file.

• Updated the solution file extension check in MSBuildWorkspaceFinder.cs
• Added support for .slnx file extensions

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

src/BuiltInTools/dotnet-format/Workspaces/MSBuildWorkspaceFinder.cs:60

• Consider adding test cases to verify that the new .slnx extension is correctly identified as a solution file.

|| workspaceExtension.Equals(".slnx", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase);

[edvilme]

Thanks for the fix!
Looks good to me, we weren't sure if it was already supported by your command :)

[baronfel]

We'll need the tactics template and stuff to get approval here.

[kasperk81]

@baronfel the other two places missing slnx handling #40913 (comment)

[edvilme]

We'll need the tactics template and stuff to get approval here.

Hello @sharwell sice you have a bit more context, could you please help us out with the template and email? Thx!

[edvilme]

Added "DO NOT MERGE" to avoid accidental merges after rerunning tests :)

[Forgind]

@sharwell, did you intend to add servicing-consider?

[virzak]

Would really like to have this plz

[kasperk81]

could you please help us out with the template and email?

can someone else fill the template if op isn't available for three weeks? pr description has the clear context: not a regression, rather it's for slnx support feature completion released in 9.0.100

[Forgind]

could you please help us out with the template and email?

can someone else fill the template if op isn't available for three weeks? pr description has the clear context: not a regression, rather it's for slnx support feature completion released in 9.0.100

I can probably just add servicing-consider; it doesn't look like a risky PR to me. My only concern is that since I'm not fully aware of the impact of the change, I'm not sure I could make a good case for it if there's any pushback.

[Forgind]

could you please help us out with the template and email?

can someone else fill the template if op isn't available for three weeks? pr description has the clear context: not a regression, rather it's for slnx support feature completion released in 9.0.100

I can probably just add servicing-consider; it doesn't look like a risky PR to me. My only concern is that since I'm not fully aware of the impact of the change, I'm not sure I could make a good case for it if there's any pushback.

I was told to not do this so unmarking it. @sharwell?

[sailro]

Hello there.

I really hope this will be merged very soon. It's really extremely annoying for those who use dotnet format as precommit and who have already switched to slnx format.

Thanks!

[WeihanLi]

any release plan for this fix?

[marcpopMSFT]

This will be discussed tomorrow in tactics for inclusion in May servicing.