The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20220331061810/https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/pull/15802
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

Seal ClientRemotePowerShell #15802

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Jan 21, 2022
Merged

Conversation

xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor

@xtqqczze xtqqczze commented Jul 20, 2021

Seal internal System.Management.Automation.Runspaces.Internal.ClientRemotePowerShell class as it not meant to be derived from.

The motivation of this PR is this comment by @PaulHigin in #11820 (comment). Sealing the class enables fixing the disposable implementation as previously attempted in #11820.

Contributes to #15110.

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov commented Jul 21, 2021

@xtqqczze Please add more information in the PR description why we need this.

@iSazonov iSazonov added the CL-CodeCleanup label Jul 21, 2021
@xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor Author

@xtqqczze xtqqczze commented Jul 21, 2021

@xtqqczze Please add more information in the PR description why we need this.

done

@iSazonov iSazonov requested a review from PaulHigin Jul 21, 2021
Copy link
Collaborator

@PaulHigin PaulHigin left a comment

It seems wrong to have a Dispose function that doesn't do anything. Stream objects are closed through protocol messages and Dispose appears to be unneeded. However, this code is so old I hesitate to make any significant changes to it, for fear of regressions.

@xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor Author

@xtqqczze xtqqczze commented Jul 28, 2021

@PaulHigin Since we seal ClientRemotePowerShell, we can remove the disposable implementation completely.

We only instantiate the class in sealed class System.Management.Automation.ClientRemotePowerShell so there are only very few changes required for removal:
xtqqczze@de99b2431.

@msftbot msftbot bot added the Review - Needed label Aug 5, 2021
@msftbot
Copy link

@msftbot msftbot bot commented Aug 5, 2021

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

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov commented Jan 19, 2022

/rebase

@msftbot msftbot bot removed the Review - Needed label Jan 19, 2022
xtqqczze added 4 commits Jan 19, 2022
Seal `System.Management.Automation.Runspaces.Internal.ClientRemotePowerShell`
Fix [CS0628: new protected member declared in sealed class](https://docs.microsoft.com/dotnet/csharp/misc/cs0628)
@github-actions github-actions bot force-pushed the seal-ClientRemotePowerShell branch from 633d09f to b09d6aa Compare Jan 19, 2022
@iSazonov iSazonov enabled auto-merge (squash) Jan 19, 2022
@iSazonov iSazonov closed this Jan 21, 2022
auto-merge was automatically disabled Jan 21, 2022

Pull request was closed

@iSazonov iSazonov reopened this Jan 21, 2022
@pull-request-quantifier
Copy link

@pull-request-quantifier pull-request-quantifier bot commented Jan 21, 2022

This PR has 46 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +21 -25
Percentile : 18.4%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +21 -25

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 detetcted.
  • 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? 👍  👌  👎 (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@iSazonov iSazonov merged commit f83660e into PowerShell:master Jan 21, 2022
46 checks passed
@xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor Author

@xtqqczze xtqqczze commented Feb 1, 2022

@iSazonov Thanks for merging :)

@xtqqczze xtqqczze deleted the seal-ClientRemotePowerShell branch Feb 1, 2022
@msftbot
Copy link

@msftbot msftbot bot commented Feb 24, 2022

🎉v7.3.0-preview.2 has been released which incorporates this pull request.🎉

Handy links:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CL-CodeCleanup Extra Small
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants