8000 Makes Format-Custom treat DateTime as a scalar unless Expaned by powercode · Pull Request #18293 · PowerShell/PowerShell · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

Makes Format-Custom treat DateTime as a scalar unless Expaned #18293

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.

S 8000 ign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

Makes Format-Custom treat DateTime as a scalar unless Expaned #18293

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

powercode
Copy link
Collaborator

PR Summary

The default behavior of Format-Custom with datetime Properties becomes very spammy. This PR makes the formatting system treat System.DateTime as a scalar, unless included in the new ExpandType parameter.

PR Context

As discussed in issue #18142, and easily verified by typing

[pscustomobject]@{Time = [datetime]::now} | format-custom

the default handling of datetime is spammy.

This PR changes the default treatment of DateTime in Format-Custom, but adds a parameter -ExpandType that allows the user to opt-in to the old behavior.

PR Checklist

@powercode powercode requested a review from PaulHigin as a code owner October 14, 2022 10:25
@ghost ghost assigned anmenaga Oct 14, 2022
@powercode powercode force-pushed the formatting/less_spammy branch from 966e189 to 9666006 Compare October 14, 2022 10:30
iSazonov
iSazonov reviewed Oct 14, 2022
View reviewed changes
src/System.Management.Automation/FormatAndOutput/common/FormatViewGenerator_Complex.cs Outdated
@@ -418,6 +418,8 @@ internal TraversalInfo NextLevel
/// </summary>
internal sealed class ComplexViewObjectBrowser
{
private static readonly HashSet<string> s_defaultLeafTypes = new() { "System.DateTime" };
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

DateTimeOffset is good candidate in the list.

Should the HashSet be OrdinalIgnorecase?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm uncertain about casing - This seemed like the safest choice, but we could also ensure that we never have types that only differ by case in the set of types.

src/System.Management.Automation/FormatAndOutput/common/FormatViewGenerator_Complex.cs Outdated
private static bool TreatAsScalarType(Collection<string> typeNames)
private static bool TreatAsScalarType(Collection<string> typeNames, string[] scalarTypesToExpand)
{
return TypeIsScalarForComplexView(typeNames, scalarTypesToExpand) || DefaultScalarTypes.IsTypeInList(typeNames);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  1. I'd swap the condition since it makes no sense to change the behavior by user input.
  2. And at first look it makes sense to put "Datetime" in DefaultScalarTypes (and enhance it with exclusion list). Perhaps it is useful for other code paths too.
  3. Perhaps it makes sense to use the s_defaultLeafTypes list in ExpandType parameter for IntelliSense.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Regarding #2: It was not obvious to me that that behavior was desired. With Format-List, for example, a user may reasonably want to see all the properties of the type.

@iSazonov iSazonov added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label Oct 14, 2022
@powercode powercode force-pushed the formatting/less_spammy branch 4 times, most recently from 97f5dbe to fc901d8 Compare October 17, 2022 10:00
@powercode powercode force-pushed the formatting/less_spammy branch from fc901d8 to dc89342 Compare October 17, 2022 11:49
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

This PR has 88 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Small
Size       : +70 -18
Percentile : 35.2%

Total files changed: 4

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +30 -18
.ps1 : +40 -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.

@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Oct 24, 2022
@ghost
Copy link
ghost commented Oct 24, 2022

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

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added the CommunityDay-Small A small PR that the PS team has identified to prioritize to review label May 15, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept and removed Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed labels May 22, 2023
@ghost ghost added the Stale label Jun 6, 2023
@ghost
Copy link
ghost commented Jun 6, 2023

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has been marked as requiring author feedback but has not had any activity for 15 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 10 days of this comment.

@ghost ghost closed this Jun 16, 2023
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT left review comments

@iSazonov iSazonov iSazonov left review comments

@PaulHigin PaulHigin Awaiting requested review from PaulHigin

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw Awaiting requested review from daxian-dbw

Assignees

@anmenaga anmenaga

Labels
CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log CommunityDay-Small A small PR that the PS team has identified to prioritize to review Small Stale Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@powercode @SteveL-MSFT @iSazonov @daxian-dbw @anmenaga
0