Skip to content

WebRequestPSCmdlet.Common.cs nullable comments #19162

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

Open
wants to merge 45 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

CarloToso
Copy link
Contributor

@CarloToso CarloToso commented Feb 16, 2023

PR Summary

Enable nullable annotations in WebRequestPSCmdlet.Common.cs, please review carefully.

PR Context

Discussed with @iSazonov in #19128
After #19249
After #19359

PR Checklist

@CarloToso
Copy link
Contributor Author

Unrelated test failure

Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't comment all issues but only demonstrate my thoughts.

@@ -653,7 +654,7 @@ protected override void ProcessRecord()

if (_followRelLink)
{
if (!_relationLink.ContainsKey("next"))
if (!_relationLink!.ContainsKey("next"))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps we could set [MemberNotNull(nameof(_relationLink))] on ParseLinkHeader() method.

@@ -1251,7 +1252,7 @@ internal virtual HttpResponseMessage GetResponse(HttpClient client, HttpRequestM
CustomMethod = string.Empty;
}

currentUri = new Uri(request.RequestUri, response.Headers.Location);
currentUri = new Uri(request.RequestUri!, response.Headers.Location);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The same.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I still haven't found a way to correctly handle this, do you have some guidance?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Implemented a possible solution, maybe i could have used currentUri = response.Headers.Location;

@CarloToso CarloToso changed the title WebRequestPSCmdlet.Common.cs nullable comments [W.I.P] WebRequestPSCmdlet.Common.cs nullable comments Feb 17, 2023
@@ -144,7 +146,7 @@ public abstract class WebRequestPSCmdlet : PSCmdlet
/// </summary>
[Parameter(Position = 0, Mandatory = true)]
[ValidateNotNullOrEmpty]
public virtual Uri Uri { get; set; }
public virtual Uri? Uri { get; set; }
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Consider [DisallowNull]

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What's the difference between [ValidateNotNullOrEmpty] and [DisallowNull] ?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

First is PowerShell attribute for parameters, second is .Net attribute for nullability annotations.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thinking more I believe this could be non-nullable because it is mandatory and not null or empty. Also there are not intentions to create an object of the class directly - only PowerShell Engine creates live cmdlets.
Maybe try:

[DisallowNull]
public virtual Uri Uri { get; set; } = null!;

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done

@iSazonov iSazonov marked this pull request as draft February 18, 2023 16:55
@CarloToso
Copy link
Contributor Author

@iSazonov is the solution I chose for WebSession correct and admissable?

@CarloToso CarloToso marked this pull request as ready for review February 19, 2023 21:06
@CarloToso
Copy link
Contributor Author

@iSazonov I think I addressed all the problems except 2

@CarloToso CarloToso requested review from iSazonov and removed request for PaulHigin February 19, 2023 21:08
@CarloToso
Copy link
Contributor Author

CarloToso commented Mar 7, 2023

@iSazonov #19249 was merged, we can now focus on this PR, could you please review it one more time?
After we merge this I can add nullable comments to other parts of webcmdlets

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

iSazonov commented Mar 8, 2023

@CarloToso Since we merged large PR today I suggest to continue the work beginning with lowest level types like WebRequestSession and then move upwards.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 15, 2023

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

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 136 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       : +70 -66
Percentile : 47.2%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +70 -66

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.

@CarloToso
Copy link
Contributor Author

@iSazonov could you help me fix the 2 remaining errors?

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov could you help me fix the 2 remaining errors?

Probably on Wednesday.

@ghost ghost removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Apr 24, 2023
@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

These CIs fails come from #19330 (_cancelToken is used incorrectly) which is unnecessarily complicated, takes the wrong approach, and as we see here adds bugs. I would revert the PR. /cc @adityapatwardhan

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added WG-Cmdlets general cmdlet issues Needs-Triage The issue is new and needs to be triaged by a work group. labels May 1, 2023
@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label May 9, 2023
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 9, 2023

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

@StevenBucher98 StevenBucher98 added PowerShell-Docs needed The PR was reviewed and a PowerShell Docs update is needed PowerShell-Docs not needed The PR was reviewed and doesn't appear to require a PowerShell Docs update and removed PowerShell-Docs needed The PR was reviewed and a PowerShell Docs update is needed labels May 15, 2023
@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT removed the WG-Cmdlets general cmdlet issues label Apr 17, 2024
@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Apr 17, 2024
@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Apr 24, 2024
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 Needs-Triage The issue is new and needs to be triaged by a work group. PowerShell-Docs not needed The PR was reviewed and doesn't appear to require a PowerShell Docs update Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants