dotnet
Implement completion for package references in csproj files
Environment data
dotnet --info output:
.NET Command Line Tools (1.0.0-rc4-004706)
Product Information:
Version: 1.0.0-rc4-004706
Commit SHA-1 hash: e38bc4950c
Runtime Environment:
OS Name: Mac OS X
OS Version: 10.11
OS Platform: Darwin
RID: osx.10.11-x64
Base Path: /usr/local/share/dotnet/sdk/1.0.0-rc4-004706
VS Code version: 1.8.1 ee428b0eead68bf0fb99ab5fdc4439be227b6281
C# Extension version: 1.6.2
Steps to reproduce
Edit a netcore csproj
Expected behavior
Intellisense when trying to get nuget package names and versions. This is currently possible in project.json. Editing this file manually without intellisense is a bit painful.
Actual behavior
No behaviour its just editing a text file
This will likely happen at some point, but not for awhile (unless somebody wants to contribute! :smile:)
Hi, I'd be willing to give this a shot. I think this was/is a killer feature and I'm already starting to miss it! ;)
Are you planning on merging PR #224? In that case I should make the implementation for csproj somehow fit into what was there for project.json. Otherwise I'd use the project.json implementation as a template for csproj wherever it makes sense.
I'd start by raising the PR asap so you can easily follow up on progress. Since you tagged this issue as Backlog, should I target master or future with my PR?
Let me know your plans regarding #224 so I can compile the task list for my PR.
Cheers, Christoph
You're welcome to take a stab at it! It'll be quite some time before I'm able to get to this.
Indeed editing without the intellisense is a bit of a pain so I've been using the dotnet cli to manipulate nuget packages. Though I would use this should it be completed. Good luck!
BTW, there's a new extension for Visual Studio 2017 that provides PackageReference intellisense:
https://github.com/dotnet/ProjFileTools
Might help if anybody is curious about the mechanics of how to accomplish this.
@mlorbetske and I were talking about how we might pull this into OmniSharp and C# for VS Code just yesterday.
Unfortunately, this is going to have to move to 1.11. I've started looking at it, but other responsibilities got in the way this month.
Hi.
It's not part of OmniSharp, but I finally bit the bullet and wrote an extension to provide basic completion for PackageReference elements (package Ids and versions). I'm planning to eventually build out a full MSBuild language service behind it but it's probably good enough now for the most common use-case (packages from nuget.org - custom package sources from NuGet.config will be added in a later release). The NuGet v3 API is a little slow (but not infuriatingly so). Hopefully they'll improve it over time.
BTW, I'm happy to contribute this functionality back to OmniSharp if it makes sense to do so.
The current changelog for C# extension reads "Known Issues in 1.12.0...There currently is no completion support for package references in csproj files. (#1156)"
Might be a good idea to add a link to @tintoy 's extension to tide people over in the interim. Or just simply adopt that extension wholesale as the official support.
That's a very good idea (and thanks for bumping this issue to the top of my stack :smile:).
@tintoy: I'd definitely work with you to contribute this back into C# for VS Code if you're interested. In the meantime, I'll add some text to point folks to your extension.
Bonus -- @tintoy just added ability to toggle filtering of pre-release versions!
@DustinCampbell @tintoy Any update on this? It would be great to have this functionality integrated into C# for VS Code.
@BryanHitchcock It's been a while since I looked into this, but I'm still open to the idea of doing this (and am happy to put in the effort if it's what users want and the OmniSharp team think it makes sense to do so 😄). I suspect this is mostly a deployment issue, rather than one of functionality (although I could be wrong) so it might be enough to ensure that MSBuild Project Tools gets installed when you install the C# extension? We previously discussed creating an extension pack but I don't think anyone's had a proper think about what that would look like so far.
