Puppeteer assembly doesn't have a strong name

[johnnyjob]

Description

An attempt to use PuppeteerSharp.dll from a DLL which has a strong name causes the following error:
System.IO.FileLoadException: Could not load file or assembly 'PuppeteerSharp, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. A strongly-named assembly is required. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131044)
File name: 'PuppeteerSharp, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null'

Expected behavior:

I would expect Puppeteer Nuget to work out of the box with any .Net project, signed or not.

Actual behavior:

Currently I have to download the source code and make my custom build of the Puppeteer. I cannot just use the Nuget package maintained by the Puppeteer developers.

Versions

Puppeteer Nuget 2.0.3

[johnnyjob]

I can fix that if it's OK to keep the SNK file in the repository. It seems that falls into Microsoft recommendations: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/assembly/strong-named

If you are an open-source developer and you want the identity benefits of a strong-named assembly, consider checking in the private key associated with an assembly to your source control system.

If it's not OK, only a person with appropriate rights in this GitHub project will be able to accomplish that task.

[kblok]

@johnnyjob I could take a look at that.
My concern is not breaking existing users and, as you said, being able to build the assembly in our CI.

[kblok]

@johnnyjob I would accept a PR for that.

[madelson]

My understanding is that if we do add a strong name it will be considered a binary breaking change by .NET. So any library that built against 2.0 won't be compatible with the strong-named assembly.

It would be nice not to break with SemVer, so I'd suggest either going to 3.0 when we do this OR releasing a side-by-side PuppeteerSharp.StrongName package built from the same code that people who care about strong names can use until PuppeteerSharp decides to go to 3.0 for other reasons.

[kblok]

I wouldn't bump the version. Matching Puppupeteer version is rule number 1 (or 2).
We could ship a StrongName assembly for these scenarios.

[kblok]

What are your thoughts here @Meir017 ?

[Meir017]

I'm ok with making puppeteer-sharp use strong naming. as long as we check-in the strong-name key file

[sergiuciudin]

This is the reason why assembly binding to Microsoft.Extensions.Logging 3.1.4.0 doesn't work?