-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
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
Code Quality: Assigned execution alias and URI for each build #16182
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
7b72fbe
to
fbb78ae
Compare
$ap = $xmlDoc.SelectSingleNode("/pkg:Package/pkg:Applications/pkg:Application/pkg:Extensions/uap:Extension[@Category='windows.protocol']/uap:Protocol", $nsmgr) | ||
$aea = $xmlDoc.SelectSingleNode("/pkg:Package/pkg:Applications/pkg:Application/pkg:Extensions/uap5:Extension[@Category='windows.appExecutionAlias']/uap5:AppExecutionAlias/uap5:ExecutionAlias", $nsmgr) | ||
$ap.SetAttribute("Name", "files"); | ||
$aea.SetAttribute("Alias", "files.exe"); |
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.
Considering that we've decided to keep files.exe
for backwards compatibility, will this duplicate definition cause issues?
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.
Maybe, maybe not. If that might happen we could remove that in Stable/Store release,
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 need to remove it for the stable release
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.
Done. Btw I renamed protocol to files-dev, files-preview and files instead of files-uwp. This alone doesn't need backward compatibility?
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.
Unless @hishitetsu sees an issue with it, I think files-uwp
can be removed.
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 files-uwp
should also be kept for backward compatibility. It is not a public feature, but someone may have written scripts using this URI scheme.
Also, I think files
is a too generic term for a URI scheme and may be confused with file
URI scheme. So I think files-app
, files-app-stable
, files-app-preview
, files-app-dev
are better.
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 personally prefer files
, as it's short and easy to type, but I'm not set on it.
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.
Easy to change before we merge this.
I'll test this again later.
Also, I'm not sure we can set more than one protocol.
Co-authored-by: Yair <[email protected]>
Resolved / Related Issues
Steps used to test these changes
None