To try and sort out the conflicts and failing checks on this (and my other outstanding PRs), I've merged the latest main branch into each of my PR branches. This has now fixed any merge conflicts, and all but this PR now passes on the CI checks.

In my own fork, all the CI runs(https://github.com/hwthomas/dotdevelop/actions) have already passed, but the typical failure here is

2022-11-08T16:08:26.1553159Z   DOWNLOADNUPKG :   
Ssl error : 1000007d:SSL routines:OPENSSL_internal:CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED  
 [/__w/dotdevelop/dotdevelop/main/external/fsharpbinding/MonoDevelop.FSharpBinding/MonoDevelop.FSharp.fsproj]   

which will (almost certainly) pass if I trigger another CI run manually (Edit: Yes, it did!). Can anyone clarify what is going on, and whether there is a "correct" way to fix this? It's very frustrating, and I don't like just blindly triggering another CI run and hoping for the best!

Downloading from nuget has been always error prone for me. Maybe you can make the CI step retry twice before giving up, as a workaround before a migration to .NET6 (in which 'dotnet restore' would be used instead)?

@knocte Thanks for your suggestion, though I'm not sure how the CI step, which uses github actions/checkout@v3, could be modified to do this. There seem to be 2 main reasons that the CI workflow fails intermittently - one is the Ssl error : 1000007d: ... OPENSSL_CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED listed above, and the other is that nearly all nuget/api/v2 URLs now seem to be blacklisted. I've tried to fix this last one with PR #93, which seems to work (so far!).

There are lots of suggestions that the SSL issue can be fixed by adding the flag -DisableParallelProcessing to nuget.exe (running under mono). This is what is already done using a macro in the DotDevelop make file, but I've not found a way of doing something similar in the github checkout@v3 action.

Maye adding NuGet packages to cache can reduce the frequent CI errors? https://github.com/actions/cache/blob/main/examples.md#c---nuget

@lextm That's an interesting thought. I wasn't aware that there could be any persistence between CI runs. If I can find time, I'll try and have a look. Many thanks.

Merged as part of #96