# Description of Changes
Implements the C# equivalent of #3638
This implement uses inheritance, where abstract base classes (like
`ProcedureContextBase` in `ProcedureContext.cs`) store the core of the
implementation, and then generated wrappers (like `ProcedureContext` in
the generated FFI.cs file) inherit from them.
For error handling, we work like Rust's implementation of `Result<T,E>`
but we require `where E : Exception` because of how exceptions work in
C#. Transaction-level failures come back as a `TxOutcome` and user
errors should follow the `Result<T,E>` pattern. In this implementation,
we have `UnwrapOrThrow()` throws exceptions directly because of C#'s
error handling pattern.
Unlike the Rust implementation's direct `Result` propagation, we are
using an `AbortGuard` pattern (in `ProcedureContext.cs`) for exception
handling, which uses `IDisposable` for automatic cleanup.
Most changes should have fairly similar Rust-equivalents beyond that.
For module authors, the changes here allow for the transation logic to
work like:
```csharp
ctx.TryWithTx<ResultType, Exception>(tx => {
// transaction logic
return Result<ResultType, Exception>.Ok(result);
});
```
This change includes a number of tests added to the
`sdks/csharp/examples~/regression-tests/`'s `server` and `client` to
validate the behavior of the changes. `server` changes provide further
usage examples for module authors.
# API and ABI breaking changes
Should not be a breaking change
# Expected complexity level and risk
2
# Testing
- [x] Created Regression Tests that show transitions in procedures
working in various ways, all of which pass.
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- Bump version numbers to `1.11.1`
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
- [x] Verified that the license has been updated
- [x] `spacetime --version` on this commit is correct
There is also a corresponding private PR.
# Description of Changes
Bumping versions to 1.11.0 in preparation for an upcoming release.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
- [x] Existing CI passes
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
This upgrades the SpacetimeDB version to 1.10.0.
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
This is just a version bump - not tested.
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
Upgrade to version 1.9.0.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None - just a version upgrade.
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] I verified that the license has been updated
- [x] The version number looks correct (1.9.0)
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
1. Updates the Replication Tests in
`sdks/csharp/examples~/regression-tests` to include better coverage of
Views
2. Added missing linkage for __call_view__ and __call_view_anon__
3. Updated *ViewDispatcher Invoke to transform BSATN.ValueOption<> into
BSATN.List<>
4. Fixed issues with the indexing of views to match correctly during
__call_view__ and __call_view_anon__
# API and ABI breaking changes
No
# Expected complexity level and risk
2
# Testing
- [x] Running `run-regression-tests.sh` passes.
---------
Signed-off-by: rekhoff <r.ekhoff@clockworklabs.io>
Signed-off-by: Jason Larabie <jason@clockworklabs.io>
Co-authored-by: Jason Larabie <jason@clockworklabs.io>
Co-authored-by: John Detter <4099508+jdetter@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: joshua-spacetime <josh@clockworklabs.io>
# Description of Changes
<!-- Please describe your change, mention any related tickets, and so on
here. -->
- This upgrades the versions of all SDKs, the CLI, etc. to 1.8.0
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
<!--
How complicated do you think these changes are? Grade on a scale from 1
to 5,
where 1 is a trivial change, and 5 is a deep-reaching and complex
change.
This complexity rating applies not only to the complexity apparent in
the diff,
but also to its interactions with existing and future code.
If you answered more than a 2, explain what is complex about the PR,
and what other components it interacts with in potentially concerning
ways. -->
1
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] I verified that all versions seem to be updated including the BSL
license update <!-- maybe a test you want to do -->
We have 1 `1.7.0` that didn't get upgraded automatically because it is
part of the module bindings for a template:
```
crates/cli/.templates/parent_parent_crates_bindings-typescript_examples_quickstart-chat/src/module_bindings/index.ts: cliVersion: '1.7.0',
```
A case could possibly be made for bumping the template but it shouldn't
cause any issues as the module bindings directory should just get
regenerated by the user. @cloutiertyler should we be bumping module
bindings for templates when we upgrade versions?
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <196249+bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
Bump versions to 1.7.0 in preparation for the release.
# API and ABI breaking changes
<!-- If this is an API or ABI breaking change, please apply the
corresponding GitHub label. -->
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
- [x] CI passes
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
Bumping versions to 1.6.0 in preparation for upcoming release.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
- [x] Existing CI only
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
Bumping remaining files so that everything is at 1.4.0.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None.
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
None
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
# Description of Changes
This change adds the following `System.TimeSpan`-style static
construction methods to `SpacetimeDB.TimeDuration`:
* `static TimeDuration FromMilliseconds(double milliseconds)`
* `static TimeDuration FromSeconds(double seconds)`
* `static TimeDuration FromMinutes(double minutes)`
* `static TimeDuration FromHours(double hours)`
* `static TimeDuration FromDays(double days)`
These mirror the equivalently named static methods on `System.TimeSpan`
and dramatically improve usability and familiarity for experienced C#
users with no more overhead than the user performing the multiplication
themselves.
Wish I'd thought to do this before v1.1.2 got released. Ah well.
# API and ABI breaking changes
None. Convenience methods added in bindings only.
# Expected complexity level and risk
1 (potentially up to a low 2 if cleanup is desired elsewhere in the
bindings to leverage these new methods).
# Testing
<!-- Describe any testing you've done, and any testing you'd like your
reviewers to do,
so that you're confident that all the changes work as expected! -->
- [x] Ensure the changes build. <!-- maybe a test you want to do -->
- [ ] New contributor check! Review to make sure repo style & substance
standards are complied with. <!-- maybe a test you want a reviewer to
do, so they can check it off when they're satisfied. -->
# Description of Changes
Bumped all versions to 1.3.0 in preparation for an upcoming minor
release.
# API and ABI breaking changes
No breaking changes.
# Expected complexity level and risk
1
# Testing
None
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeke Foppa <bfops@users.noreply.github.com>
rekhoff