Skip to content

Conversation

Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI commented Jan 1, 2026

Ports documentation improvements from dotnet/runtime@f05f25b2 that clarify how to interpret the Guid.Variant property value.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the needs-area-label An area label is needed to ensure this gets routed to the appropriate area owners label Jan 1, 2026
@jkotas jkotas changed the title [WIP] Port changes from untime/pull/118987 to dotnet-api-docs [WIP] Port changes from runtime/pull/118987 to dotnet-api-docs Jan 1, 2026
Copilot AI changed the title [WIP] Port changes from runtime/pull/118987 to dotnet-api-docs Port runtime commit f05f25b2: Clarify Guid.Variant property documentation Jan 1, 2026
Copilot AI requested a review from jkotas January 1, 2026 00:50
@jkotas jkotas marked this pull request as ready for review January 1, 2026 01:01
@jkotas jkotas requested a review from a team as a code owner January 1, 2026 01:01
@jkotas jkotas requested a review from nohwnd January 1, 2026 01:02
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR ports documentation improvements from dotnet/runtime that clarify the Guid.Variant property documentation. The changes make it easier for developers to understand what the property returns and how different UUID versions use the variant field.

Key Changes:

  • Replaced technical bit-level description with clearer explanation that the property returns all 4 bits unmasked
  • Added a concrete UUIDv7 example to illustrate "don't-care" bits
  • Updated wording to align with dotnet-api-docs style guide

@jkotas
Copy link
Member

jkotas commented Jan 1, 2026

@tannergooding @nohwnd Porting changes from dotnet/runtime#118987 to official docs. Note that the copilot made a minor style change.

@jkotas jkotas changed the title Port runtime commit f05f25b2: Clarify Guid.Variant property documentation Clarify Guid.Variant property documentation Jan 1, 2026
@jkotas jkotas requested a review from gewarren January 1, 2026 02:05
Copy link
Contributor

@gewarren gewarren left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Left some suggestions for consideration.

Comment on lines +3143 to +3144
<para>This property returns all 4 bits as is. Some users might only care about fewer bits of the variant field and should refer to <see href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9562.html">RFC 9562</see> for how to interpret the result.</para>
<para>For example, UUIDv7 might only want to consider the 2 most significant bits of the field, as the least 2 significant bits are documented as "don't-care".</para>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<para>This property returns all 4 bits as is. Some users might only care about fewer bits of the variant field and should refer to <see href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9562.html">RFC 9562</see> for how to interpret the result.</para>
<para>For example, UUIDv7 might only want to consider the 2 most significant bits of the field, as the least 2 significant bits are documented as "don't-care".</para>
<para>This property returns all 4 bits as-is. If you only care about fewer bits of the variant field, see <see href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9562.html">RFC 9562</see> for information on how to interpret the result.</para>
<para>For example, [the UUIDv7 standard](https://uuidv7.org/) might only want to consider the two most significant bits of the field, as the least two significant bits are documented as "don't-care".</para>

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

needs-area-label An area label is needed to ensure this gets routed to the appropriate area owners

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants