Sync methods for IEfCoreScope

[PeterKvayt]

Prerequisites

There is an existing discussion

Description

See in existing discussion

[github-actions]

Hi there @PeterKvayt, thank you for this contribution! 👍

While we wait for one of the Core Collaborators team to have a look at your work, we wanted to let you know about that we have a checklist for some of the things we will consider during review:

• It's clear what problem this is solving, there's a connected issue or a description of what the changes do and how to test them
• The automated tests all pass (see "Checks" tab on this PR)
• The level of security for this contribution is the same or improved
• The level of performance for this contribution is the same or improved
• Avoids creating breaking changes; note that behavioral changes might also be perceived as breaking
• If this is a new feature, Umbraco HQ provided guidance on the implementation beforehand
• 💡 The contribution looks original and the contributor is presumably allowed to share it

Don't worry if you got something wrong. We like to think of a pull request as the start of a conversation, we're happy to provide guidance on improving your contribution.

If you realize that you might want to make some changes then you can do that by adding new commits to the branch you created for this work and pushing new commits. They should then automatically show up as updates to this pull request.

Thanks, from your friendly Umbraco GitHub bot 🤖 🙂

[emmagarland]

Hi @PeterKvayt

Thanks for your PR to add Sync methods for IEfCoreScope.

One of the Core Collaborators team will review this as soon as possible,

Best wishes

Emma

[nul800sebastiaan]

Hey there @PeterKvayt and thanks for the PR!

We encourage people to start a discussion to get feedback before they start working on a PR. We don't want you to do a lot of work and waste your time.

In this case, luckily it wasn't a lot of work, but I am going to close your PR.
We're working on making as much async as we can and are not adding any new sync methods. Your workaround as noted in the discussion is a good one, and we encourage you to use that instead.

Thanks again!