[BREAKING CHANGE] Parameter changed on ResourceManagerStringLocalizer constructor

[javiercn]

V1:
public ResourceManagerStringLocalizer(ResourceManager resourceManager, AssemblyWrapper resourceAssemblyWrapper, string baseName, IResourceNamesCache resourceNamesCache)
V2:
public ResourceManagerStringLocalizer(ResourceManager resourceManager, IResourceStringProvider resourceStringProvider, string baseName, IResourceNamesCache resourceNamesCache)

[ACTION for 1.1]: Undo the constructor change.
[Action for 2.0]: Take the change if is what we want to do.

[javiercn]

@Eilon

[BrennanConroy]

The tool looks like it has a bug
The V1 constructor still exists

Localization/src/Microsoft.Extensions.Localization/ResourceManagerStringLocalizer.cs

Line 34 in f650de8

public ResourceManagerStringLocalizer(

[javiercn]

@BrennanConroy You are looking at the wrong constructor
AssemblyWrapper resourceAssemblyWrapper not Assembly resourceAssembly

[javiercn]

https://github.com/aspnet/Localization/blob/1.0.0/src/Microsoft.Extensions.Localization/ResourceManagerStringLocalizer.cs#L51
https://github.com/aspnet/Localization/blob/dev/src/Microsoft.Extensions.Localization/ResourceManagerStringLocalizer.cs#L57

[hishamco]

@javiercn I'm not sure why it's a breaking change, while the constructor intended for testing purposes only?!!

[Eilon]

@ryanbrandenburg can you get the fix in ASAP?

@hishamco it's a source-code breaking change in case someone used named parameters to call the constructor.

[hishamco]

I'm with you @elion, but still wonder, because the constructor is intended for Testing purpose (nothing else), correct me if I'm wrong

[ryanbrandenburg]

I believe I discussed this with either @rynowak or @dougbu at the time and we decided it was ok to change this one because it's labeled as for testing only.

[Eilon]

Yeah that's a no-go, it's still a breaking change.

[hishamco]

As I said before it's for testing only, so that's why internal modifier is preferable for internal classes, I remembered long time back I posted an issue regarding this, but @Eilon said this is how we design it for almost the aspnet repos