Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix Get-FormatData attempting to incorrectly cast a type #21157

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SteveL-MSFT
Copy link
Member

@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT commented Jan 29, 2024

PR Summary

Deep in the formatdata code, it assumes a member is of a type and can be cast to another type which throws. Not able to determine a simple case to add a test case, but validated manually with posh module the fix works. Also added a verbose message on which formatdata viewdefinition is being processed when it fails, but it doesn't end up being too useful, but perhaps still ok to keep since verbose isn't default (although not sure since it fails on FileSystemTypes, but only if posh module is imported as it seems to be modifying that format data, but don't have the module information anymore).

PR Context

Fix #21139

PR Checklist

This PR has 119 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Medium
Size       : +118 -1
Percentile : 43.8%

Total files changed: 3

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +3 -1
.resx : +115 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT changed the title Fix Get-FormatData attempting to incorrect cast a type Fix Get-FormatData attempting to incorrectly cast a type Jan 29, 2024
@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Feb 6, 2024
Copy link
Member

@JamesWTruher JamesWTruher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good, I also appreciate the verbose statement.
Should there be any validation for this?

@SteveL-MSFT
Copy link
Member Author

Should there be any validation for this?

As noted in the PR description, wasn't able to find an easy test case so manually verified with posh module

@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label May 13, 2024
<resheader name="writer">
<value>System.Resources.ResXResourceWriter, System.Windows.Forms, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089</value>
</resheader>
<data name="LineLessThanOne" xml:space="preserve">
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This string is newly added but doesn't seem to be used.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch, was a copy-paste error from another resx file

Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically marked as Review Needed because it has been there has not been any activity for 7 days.
Maintainer, please provide feedback and/or mark it as Waiting on Author

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Medium Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Get-FormatData should output non-terminating errors
3 participants