Support C# format strings in config

[9swampy]

Description

Support C# format strings in config

Related Issue

Fixes #4156

Motivation and Context

#4156

How Has This Been Tested?

I've implemented a number of formatters and added scenario coverage for implementation but a 4-eyes verification and feedback on appropriateness of scenarios included (or not) would be welcome. The specific scenrio noted on the wish-issue tested here and here.

I've an aversion to Helper classes but that's where I've dropped all this as an extension of the original StringFormatWith but please redirect if it should live elsewhere (or just needs some structure).

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[arturcic]

please rebase and resolve the conflicts

[asbjornu]

Awesome work! ❤️

[asbjornu]

Besides the build failure, this is looking really good! The only missing part is documentation.

[arturcic]

@9swampy if you don't mind I'll have a review of this in 2 weeks time as I'm on vacation. I need to understand it a bit in detail the changes as there is a chance we will need to maintain these changes.

[phatcher]

Can I also suggest adding some tests that use the zero-suppression syntax so that we can get versions without a commits number e.g.

[TestCase(0, "{0:0000}", "0000")]
[TestCase(1, "{0:0000}", "0001")]
[TestCase(0, "{0:-0000;;''}", "")]
[TestCase(1, "{0:-0000;;''}", "-0001")]
public void ZeroFormatting(int value, string template, string expected)
{
    var candidate = string.Format(template, value);

    Assert.That(candidate, Is.EqualTo(expected));
}

[arturcic]

@9swampy could you please rebase your branch onto latest main and fix the conflict?

[asbjornu]

Having now spun up the documentation and read through it, there's one thing I don't quite understand. In what looks like code examples, we find stuff like this:

# GitVersion.yml
template: "{Major}.{Minor}.{Patch:F2}-{PreReleaseLabel}"

This gives the impression that template is a supported configuration key in GitVersion.yml. Afaik, it is not? Fixing the examples so they only provide code that actually works in GitVersion.yml and removing the test cases and I think we're good!

[9swampy]

Having now spun up the documentation and read through it, there's one thing I don't quite understand. In what looks like code examples, we find stuff like this:

# GitVersion.yml
template: "{Major}.{Minor}.{Patch:F2}-{PreReleaseLabel}"

This gives the impression that template is a supported configuration key in GitVersion.yml. Afaik, it is not? Fixing the examples so they only provide code that actually works in GitVersion.yml and removing the test cases and I think we're good!

No worries, it was AI generated. The way I read it was:

• template = the key being set, from all possible valid keys
• "{Major}.{Minor}.{Patch:F2}-{PreReleaseLabel}" = the template being set

It didn't mean to imply there was a configuration key called template, but I see where you're coming from. This and the test verified examples: gone.

Really wasn't comfortable with the docs, that's why I marked them "draft". would be nice to make it in to the imminent release so if there's more tweaks don't be shy.

[arturcic]

Having now spun up the documentation and read through it, there's one thing I don't quite understand. In what looks like code examples, we find stuff like this:

# GitVersion.yml
template: "{Major}.{Minor}.{Patch:F2}-{PreReleaseLabel}"

This gives the impression that template is a supported configuration key in GitVersion.yml. Afaik, it is not? Fixing the examples so they only provide code that actually works in GitVersion.yml and removing the test cases and I think we're good!

No worries, it was AI generated. The way I read it was:

• template = the key being set, from all possible valid keys
• "{Major}.{Minor}.{Patch:F2}-{PreReleaseLabel}" = the template being set

It didn't mean to imply there was a configuration key called template, but I see where you're coming from. This and the test verified examples: gone.

Really wasn't comfortable with the docs, that's why I marked them "draft". would be nice to make it in to the imminent release so if there's more tweaks don't be shy.

@asbjornu if you find all these changes good, please merge this PR

[asbjornu]

Only one final question about backwards compatibility and we're good to go!

[arturcic]

hey @9swampy I recently introduced sonarcloud quality checks, mind to check the new issues (they should be easy to fix), and please rebase the branch

[9swampy]

hey @9swampy I recently introduced sonarcloud quality checks, mind to check the new issues (they should be easy to fix), and please rebase the branch

Have had to dance with that devil in several workplaces: no problem. Prevention's better than cure though IMHO, and there's very little that code analysers can't get in front of. Editorconfig's are fairly well respected now too.

[arturcic]

@9swampy you have now the approvals, so please rebase and fix the sonar cloud issues and we are good to merge

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[mergify]

Thank you @9swampy for your contribution!