Skip to content

Conversation

@peppy
Copy link
Member

@peppy peppy commented Jun 13, 2025

This is just a sanity thing to match expectations of the client.

This is just a sanity thing to match expectations of the client.
Comment on lines +102 to +104
// ensure version has a suffix
if (version.Split('-').Length == 1)
version = $"{version}-lazer";
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure the Android builder is going to like this:

string[] versionParts = Version.Split('.');
string versionCode = versionParts[0].PadLeft(4, '0') + versionParts[1].PadLeft(4, '0') + versionParts[2].PadLeft(1, '0');
RunDotnetPublish($"-p:ApplicationVersion={versionCode} {codeSigningArguments}");

Also note that both the Velopack and GH uploaders match the release by tag with this name:

+ $" --tag=\"{version}\""
+ $" --releaseName=\"{version}\""

if (targetRelease == null || targetRelease.TagName != version)

I don't know how this behaves exactly so have you tested this? Android/iOS is a much of a muchness but at least in-so-far as you've tested you can actually upload vpk releases to GH with your intended tagging workflow.

Because, it does mean that the if condition doesn't actually make much sense here - if version is arriving without a suffix then releases aren't going to get matched.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure the Android builder is going to like this:

may need custom handling, didn't notice this.

Also note that both the Velopack and GH uploaders match the release by tag with this name:

Tag is probably what we want, but maybe not release name, I'l check on this.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've fixed the android builder issue. The other issue you bring up doesn't seem like it needs any changes, but I haven't done a test of this yet.

One thing I'd want to confirm is that it is okay to have the suffix in the release asset filenames?

2025-06-16 05 55 53@2x

ie does velopack manage things based on PackageId and this is a non-issue as a result?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes it's fine. The asset filenames don't matter as long as it's velopack that's generating them.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In that case I think we could get this in and do a test run (then pull the build quickly if there's any issues).

Copy link
Contributor

@smoogipoo smoogipoo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Haven't tested so this is just a blanket approval.

@peppy peppy merged commit 65f6ba7 into master Jun 16, 2025
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants