Public API document doesn't reflect the actual type of parameter

[gaufung]

This bunch of public APIs first parameter is LoggerFilterOptions instead of the ILoggingBuilder . And the return type is LoggerFilterOptions instead of ILoggingBuilder as well.

Suggestion

-  /// <param name="builder">The <see cref="ILoggingBuilder"/> to add the filter to.</param>
+ /// <param name="builder">The <see cref="LoggerFilterOptions"/> to add the filter to.</param>

- /// <returns>The <see cref="ILoggingBuilder"/> so that additional calls can be chained.</returns>
+ /// <returns>The <see cref="LoggerFilterOptions"/> so that additional calls can be chained.</returns>

Tagging subscribers to this area: @maryamariyan
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

This bunch of public APIs first parameter is LoggerFilterOptions instead of the ILoggingBuilder .

Suggestion

-  /// <param name="builder">The <see cref="ILoggingBuilder"/> to add the filter to.</param>
+ /// <param name="builder">The <see cref="LoggerFilterOptions"/> to add the filter to.</param>

Author:	gaufung
Assignees:	-
Labels:	untriaged, area-Extensions-Logging
Milestone:	-

[ericstj]

@carlossanlop @maryamariyan do we need to do anything special to ensure this gets updated here too?

dotnet-api-docs/xml/Microsoft.Extensions.Logging/FilterLoggingBuilderExtensions.xml

Line 152 in 2238750

<param name="builder">The <see cref="T:Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.ILoggingBuilder" /> to add the filter to.</param>

[carlossanlop]

The DocsPortingTool can't port API docs to elements that are already documented, so they need to get updated manually in the dotnet-api-docs xml.

[maryamariyan]

Thanks @carlossanlop

@gaufung would you be open to contributing over

dotnet-api-docs/xml/Microsoft.Extensions.Logging/FilterLoggingBuilderExtensions.xml

Line 152 in 2238750

<param name="builder">The <see cref="T:Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.ILoggingBuilder" /> to add the filter to.</param>

on the dotnet/dotnet-api-docs repo to submit this edit over there?

[ericstj]

I think this missed the cut-off for 6.0 docs, moving to 7.0. @carlossanlop, suppose we just flip this library to have it's source as the source-of-truth for docs, would we sill need to port anything?