Building libs.tests fails in XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests

[carlossanlop]

I have a clean enlistment synced to the latest runtime commit in master.
I ran .\build.cmd clr+libs -rc release without problem.
When I build .\build.cmd libs.tests -rc release, I get this error:

Assembly 'D:\runtime\artifacts\bin\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests\net5.0-Debug\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests.dll' does not contain any types that can be serialized using XmlSerializer.
D:\runtime\src\libraries\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator\tests\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests.csproj(47,5): error : Fail to generate D:\runtime\artifacts\bin\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests\net5.0-Debug\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests.XmlSerializers.cs
D:\runtime\src\libraries\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator\tests\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests.csproj(48,5): error MSB3030: Could not copy the file "D:\runtime\artifacts\bin\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests\net5.0-Debug\Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests.XmlSerializers.cs" because it was not found.

Let me know if you need more info.

Tagging subscribers to this area: @safern, @ViktorHofer
Notify danmosemsft if you want to be subscribed.

[safern]

cc: @ViktorHofer @ericstj -- maybe a fallout from: 8790ade

What is weird is that CI is not failing and CI is doing build.cmd libs.tests. @carlossanlop was this in your regular machine or the Surface Pro X?

[ericstj]

Odd. I'd expect serializable types to come from here

runtime/src/libraries/Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator/tests/Microsoft.XmlSerializer.Generator.Tests.csproj

Line 18 in 8892364

<Compile Include="$(TestSourceFolder)..\..\System.Runtime.Serialization.Xml\tests\SerializationTypes.cs" />

One thing that comes to mind would be that this could happen if you were messing with TargetArchitecture. For instance if you set it to arm64 and built the project (meant to skip) then set it to something else like amd64. It's possible compiler wouldn't rebuild due to incremental, but would try to run the generator.

[ericstj]

Frankly think we shouldn't be conditioning the test this way as it could cause these incremental build issues since the project doesn't represent these as configurations. Instead we should have the condition as attribute on the test.

[ViktorHofer]

Agreed with using runtime detection over compile time exclusion. Probably via an XUnitExtensions attribute? cc @safern

[carlossanlop]

was this in your regular machine or the Surface Pro X?

@safern so far I've seen it in my ARM64 surface, but if I see it in my x64 PC I'll let you know.