aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/csharp/src/Google.Protobuf.Test/Google.Protobuf.Test.csproj
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* Convert C# projects to MSBuild (csproj) formatJon Skeet2017-05-241-0/+30
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This has one important packaging change: the netstandard version now depends (implicitly) on netstandard1.6.1 rather than on individual packages. This is the preferred style of dependency, and shouldn't affect any users - see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/42946951 for details. The tests are still NUnit, but NUnit doesn't support "dotnet test" yet; the test project is now an executable using NUnitLite. (When NUnit supports dotnet test, we can adapt to it.) Note that the project will now only work in Visual Studio 2017 (and Visual Studio Code, and from the command line with the .NET Core 1.0.0 SDK); Visual Studio 2015 does *not* support this project file format.
* Move to dotnet cli for building, and .NET Core (netstandard1.0) as target ↵Jon Skeet2016-07-141-143/+0
| | | | | | | platform (#1727) Move to dotnet cli for building, and .NET Core (netstandard1.0) as target platform This also updates the version number to 3.0.0-beta4
* Use checked-in key to build ReleaseSignedJan Tattermusch2016-02-091-1/+1
|
* Ensure that FieldMask, Timestamp and Duration ToString() calls don't throwJon Skeet2016-01-201-0/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | The usage of ICustomDiagnosticMessage here is non-essential - ToDiagnosticString doesn't actually get called by ToString() in this case, due to JsonFormatter code. It was intended to make it clearer that it *did* have a custom format... but then arguably I should do the same for Value, Struct, Any etc. Moving some of the code out of JsonFormatter and into Duration/Timestamp/FieldMask likewise feels somewhat nice, somewhat nasty... basically there are JSON-specific bits of formatting, but also domain-specific bits of computation. <sigh> Thoughts welcome.
* Introduce ICustomDiagnosticMessage to allow for custom string formattingJon Skeet2016-01-131-0/+1
| | | | This fixes issue #933, effectively.
* Added the type registry in advance of implementing Any support.Jon Skeet2015-11-211-0/+1
| | | | Biting off just this bit first as I don't need the changes from a previous PR for this part.
* Implement JSON parsing in C#.Jon Skeet2015-11-031-0/+2
| | | | | | | | | | This includes all the well-known types except Any. Some aspects are likely to require further work when the details of the JSON parsing expectations are hammered out in more detail. Some of these have "ignored" tests already. Note that the choice *not* to use Json.NET was made for two reasons: - Going from 0 dependencies to 1 dependency is a big hit, and there's not much benefit here - Json.NET parses more leniently than we'd want; accommodating that would be nearly as much work as writing the tokenizer This only really affects the JsonTokenizer, which could be replaced by Json.NET. The JsonParser code would be about the same length with Json.NET... but I wouldn't be as confident in it.
* Pack/Unpack implementation for Any.Jon Skeet2015-09-041-0/+1
| | | | | We still need the JSON representation, which relies on something like a DescriptorPool to fetch message types from based on the type URL. That will come a bit later. (The DescriptorPool comment in this commit is just a note which will prove useful if we use DescriptorPool itself.)
* make changes and fixes in signingJan Tattermusch2015-08-021-2/+0
|
* build signed assembliesJan Tattermusch2015-08-021-0/+14
|
* Well-known type operations for Timestamp and Duration (but not JSON formatting).Jon Skeet2015-07-311-0/+2
| | | | | While I've provided operators, I haven't yet provided the method equivalents. It's not clear to me that they're actually a good idea, while we're really targeting C# developers who definitely *can* use the user-defined operators.
* Humbug - previous commit didn't include project file changes :(Jon Skeet2015-07-281-0/+2
|
* First pass at making field access simpler.Jon Skeet2015-07-221-1/+2
| | | | This is definitely not ready to ship - I'm "troubled" by the disconnect between a list of fields in declaration order, and a mapping of field accessors by field number/name. Discussion required, but I find that easier when we've got code to look at :)
* First pass at the big rename from ProtocolBuffers to Google.Protobuf.Jon Skeet2015-07-171-0/+120
We'll see what I've missed when CI fails...