I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this PR. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

Love it. When we merge this, we should also add support an implicit RID at the same time. That will make the feature from good to great.

/cc @agocke

I think we just need a few tests here. There are some existing tests in GivenDotnetPublishPublishesProject.cs that test --self-contained that could probably be adjusted to test this as well by adding more InlineData clauses

I think we just need a few tests here. There are some existing tests in GivenDotnetPublishPublishesProject.cs that test --self-contained that could probably be adjusted to test this as well by adding more InlineData clauses

Great thanks @agocke, would add some test cases

@richlander Any more comments?

Also @wli3 in-case I'm missing anything

@KathleenDollard could you double check that? We need to be careful adding new short hands, since we have only 26 letters to use

it is good on the technical side

Unfortunately, s is source. This is important on the install commands, and it also works on restore.

We avoid having the same abbreviation mean different things, especially for closely related commands. And we work hard to have consistent abbreviations where a particular option is available. build and restore are obviously closely linked commands and it would seem likely consider them sharing more options in the future.

Since build does a restore and supports s, taking this would mean that we could not add --source to pass through to restore. It would also that we could not specify --self-contained for restore (to get the right packages). Unfortunately, c doesn't work and -sc would be confusing for Posix users. We generally avoid two letter abbreviations because of that, but as Will points out, there are only 26 letters and there is value to an abbreviation here.

I think there is no choice but to abbreviate this as -sc.

We could do --sc, which is still short but also fits posix convention

--sc sounds great to me.

I still want to hold on this change until we add an implicit RID by default.

--sc sounds great to me.

I still want to hold on this change until we add an implicit RID by default.

Is there a way to do that based on what it detects on the os and what cpu bitness it detects as well?

Thanks, will update to --sc later.

@richlander as for the default implicit RID, I'm going to implement it in another PR #19725, I'm not sure about the changes, maybe @agocke could help?

FYI @KathleenDollard is not available today.

Got @KathleenDollard's signoff offline. @wli3 , anything else before we approve and merge?

Is this ready to merge yet?