-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 769
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
Release 5.14.0 #548
Release 5.14.0 #548
Conversation
…package from forks.
Enable Source Link and Determnistic Builds; don't attempt to publish package from forks.
Enable Source Link & Deterministic Builds
Create SECURITY.md
Add guide to contributing
…ync version. Fix bug where trigger information is missing from the StateMachine.GetInfo.
… only initialised by a call to AddRelationships. However, for StateMachineInfo.InitialState, this never happens. Therefore StateMachineInfo.InitialState.Transitions throws a System.ArgumentNullException. The StateInfo object should not throw if "half initialised"
…State.Transitions-throws StateMachineInfo.InitialState.Transitions throws if AddRelationships not called
Fix spelling mistake "fireing" to "firing"
…-trigger-information Trigger information is missing for OnEntryFromAsync
…rywhere within StateMachine
…-async-if fix: InternalTransitionAsyncIf guard parameters
Implemented an example for an alarm
Remove obsolete TargetFrameworks
…erationException Bugfix: execute OnEntryFromAsync actions from FireAsync
…tion-async-if fix: InternalTransitionAsyncIf guard parameters (update)
This is async counterpart to existing Fire(TriggerWithParameters, params object[]) method. Required for firing triggers with more than 3 parameters asynchronously.
…a substate, if the machine is already in that substate then the entry action shouldn't trigger again
docs: Update README.md dead link for simplestatemachine
In the case of a superstate having a trigger that moves the state to …
Test failure, going to take a look:
|
Added FireAsync(TriggerWithParameters, params object[]) overload
Thanks, @crozone. Seems like that test is a little flaky: https://github.com/dotnet-state-machine/stateless/actions/runs/6746401636/job/18445672212#step:5:31 |
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 approve, but didn't check anything :-D
Might I suggest releasing as soon as possible after a useful change has been merged? |
@mclift It looks like the issue is in the testing harness itself that tries to lose the sync context. There was an attempt to fix this here: https://github.com/dotnet-state-machine/stateless/pull/528/files But it looks like there still may be an issue with this strategy. So Stateless isn't responsible for the failing test but the actual testing code. I think it's safe to proceed. |
Thanks for checking that out, @crozone! |
As suggested by @HenningNT, this PR is for release 5.14.0.