strongbox | A secret manager for AWS | Serverless library

In .NET Framework, SynchronizationContext is one of the contexts flown by ExecutionContext. Is this no longer true in .NET Core?

In Stephen Toub's blog post ExecutionContext vs SynchronizationContext from 2012, he writes about how SynchronizationContext is a part of ExecutionContext:

Isn’t SynchronizationContext part of ExecutionContext?

I’ve glossed over some details up until this point, but I can’t avoid them any further.

The main thing I glossed over is that of all the contexts ExecutionContext is capable of flowing (e.g. SecurityContext, HostExecutionContext, CallContext, etc.), SynchronizationContext is actually one of them. This is, I personally believe, a mistake in API design, one that’s caused a few problems since it was instituted in .NET many versions ago. Nevertheless, it’s the design we have and have had for a long time, and changing it now would be a breaking change.

The blog post goes on to elaborate on when the SynchronizationContext is being flown as part of ExecutionContext, and when that flowing is being suppressed:

The story now gets a bit messier: ExecutionContext actually has two Capture methods, but only one of them is public. The internal one (internal to mscorlib) is the one used by most asynchronous functionality exposed from mscorlib, and it optionally allows the caller to suppress the capturing of SynchronizationContext as part of ExecutionContext; corresponding to that, there’s also an internal overload of the Run method that supports ignoring a SynchronizationContext that’s stored in the ExecutionContext, in effect pretending one wasn’t captured (this is, again, the overload used by most functionality in mscorlib). What this means is that pretty much any asynchronous operation whose core implementation resides in mscorlib won’t flow SynchronizationContext as part of ExecutionContext, but any asynchronous operation whose core implementation resides anywhere else will flow SynchronizationContext as part of ExecutionContext.

However, Stephen Toub clearly talks about .NET Framework here, and reading through some of the source code for how ExecutionContext is implemented in .NET Core, it seems that this might have changed in .NET Core. The boolean preserveSyncCtx argument that was part of the internal .NET Framework ExecutionContext methods are nowhere to be found in the more modern .NET Core implementations.

But the Microsoft documentation for ExecutionContext is the same for .NET Framework and .NET Core, and states

The ExecutionContext class provides a single container for all information relevant to a logical thread of execution. This includes security context, call context, and synchronization context.

and

Wherever the compressed stack flows, the managed principal, synchronization, locale, and user context also flow.

which seems to indicate that SynchronizationContext should still be part of ExecutionContext.

To try and figure out if there is a difference, I wrote the following NUnit test:

I'm trying to generate test coverage report and view on teamcity after my project build is complete. So far I have been able to make it work on my local machine (windows) without any issue. The report is generating and I am able to view the coverage reports (html files generated) but it is failing on teamcity (project building with linux agent) with the error below:

my on-prem, Azure DevOps 2019's backups are showing an unsubstainable increase in size of the .mdf file

• query1 shows that it's the "dbo.tbl_content" table
• query2 shows that it's "FileContainer" at 112GB.
• query3 shows that it's pipelines://b at 93GB.
• query4 shows that the size used has gone up from 1GB a month, to the unsubstainable 10GB per month. This occurred in Jan 2020, when possibly coincidentally, we upgraded from TFS18 to AzureDevOps19.

So,I believe I'm looking for a build pipe (not release pipe) that needs cleaning up? Historically, we've tried to keep 366 days worth of old build logs but at the rate we're going we won't make it.

we've got about 40 build pipes (some historic, that no longer run), inc 4 triggered on commit (CI).

re: retention policy...

• typical CI build retention policy. Days to keep: 10 Min to Keep: 1
• typical RC build retention policy. Days to keep: 180 Min to Keep: 50
• from: DefaultCollection/Base/_settings/buildqueue... Maximum retention policy / Days to keep: 183 Min to Keep: 55 Default retention policy / Days to keep: 15 Min to Keep: 1 Permanently destroy builds / Days to keep build record after deletion: 366 <- I reduced this yesterday down from 7000

Any help appreciated here, but specifically:

• How can I track down the specific build that's causing the problem? and how can I fix it?
• Is there any tooling that will show me where problems lie. e.g. TFS used to have a health audit tool, but I can't see it?

Thanks,

I am a university student, looking to do some OSS work in order to practice in Software Engineering. I would like to ask what are the hardware requirements for building and developing Strongbox, as I couldn't find any information in the documentation.