As an avid user of Visual Studio and a developer of many Visual Studio extensions, I have a strong interest in enhancing the discoverability and user-friendliness of extensions. I was pleased to learn about the recent implementation of a requested feature and eagerly went to explore it.
Recently, I've also been exploring the use of WinGet DSC to configure a new laptop and have been experimenting with .vsconfig files to streamline the process.
During these investigations, I encountered an issue regarding the use of extensions containing "Extension Packs" (references to other extensions that should also be installed). Unfortunately, attempting to include them resulted in installation failures without any accompanying explanation for this limitation. Through a process of elimination, I confirmed that the inclusion of extension packs was the cause.
I submitted a bug report detailing my findings, which can be found [link to the original report, which was unfortunately removed]. Regrettably, I discovered that my access to the site has since been restricted, citing violations of the Community Code of Conduct.
Upon revisiting my initial post, I can only speculate that my direct and passionate writing style may have been misunderstood as impolite or disrespectful, but am unsure if this is the issue. I acknowledge the importance of maintaining politeness and respect in online interactions and am committed to improving in this regard.
I am left wondering if utilizing AI to refine my expressions to ensure a consistently polite and respectful tone may be a helpful approach moving forward. Perhaps this precautionary measure could prevent unintentional misinterpretations.
Below is what I posted.
I share it here as an example (and warning?) to others. Be polite and respectful!
As it's now possible to include extensions in .vsconfig files for use within a solution and to configure the setup via the installer, it would be really helpful if extensions containing extension packs were also supported.
If trying to use an extension pack it fails without explanation.
Nothing should ever fail without at least some indication of why.
Extension packs make it really easy to include multiple required and related extensions in a single place. Without proper support for these in vsconfig files we lose all the benefits they provide and vsconfig files become more complicated to manage.
If an extension only includes references to other extensions, it's possible to create a vsconfig file with all the extensions listed but this now means maintaining two lists and the vsconfig file is much larger. The difficulty of this is heightened as there's not yet a supported way to easily support ALL extensions that are installed.
If an extension includes some of it's own functionality and a vsext file to reference other extensions it cannot be used in a vsconfig file!
I can't find anywhere that this current limitation is documented.
I only managed to figure out what was happening by process of elimination.
Please help make it easier to manage the installation and configuration of Visual Studio extensions.
This experience prompts me to reconsider how I approach such suggestions in the future, given the constraints of certain platforms. I recognize that constructive dialogue is essential for improvement, and I am eager to understand the specific aspects of my communication that led to this outcome.
Moving forward, I have several questions and potential decisions to make, and I would appreciate any guidance or clarification on this matter.
You got banned because of that post? That kinda extreme don't you think? I don't find anything particularly rude in that message.
ReplyDelete