X Tutup
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20221004045509/https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/pull/17907
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

Jump to bottom

Improve type inference of hashtable keys #17907

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Improve type inference of hashtable keys #17907

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

MartinGC94
Copy link
Contributor

@MartinGC94 MartinGC94 commented Aug 16, 2022

PR Summary

Updates the hashtable visitor so all members are inferred and not just "pure" expressions.
Also updates type inference for the IndexExpression to support synthetic types.

This enables tab completion scenarios like: $Hashtable=@{Key1=ls};$Hashtable.Key1.<Tab> to properly infer the type from the command.

PR Context

PR Checklist

@MartinGC94 MartinGC94 requested a review from daxian-dbw as a code owner Aug 16, 2022
@MartinGC94 MartinGC94 closed this Aug 16, 2022
@MartinGC94 MartinGC94 reopened this Aug 16, 2022
@msftbot msftbot bot added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Aug 23, 2022
@msftbot
Copy link

msftbot bot commented Aug 23, 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

iSazonov
iSazonov reviewed Aug 24, 2022
View changes
src/System.Management.Automation/engine/parser/TypeInferenceVisitor.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/System.Management.Automation/engine/parser/TypeInferenceVisitor.cs
properties.Add(new PSMemberNameAndType(name, pstypeName, value));
if (!foundAnyTypes)
{
properties.Add(new PSMemberNameAndType(name, new PSTypeName("System.Object")));
Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov Aug 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If PSTypeName("System.Object") is immutable makes sense allocate this again and again?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@MartinGC94 MartinGC94 Aug 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How would you avoid that? Use a field?

Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov Aug 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

First question - is it a hot path or no? If yes we could use a field with lazy initialization.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@MartinGC94 MartinGC94 Aug 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hard to say. It's just a fallback for when PowerShell can't infer the type in the value expression, or when the user uses a literal $null as the value so in theory it should rarely be used. The only realistic scenario where I think it would be hot is if the user is analyzing a hashtable that uses a bunch of commands/types that are unavailable because the module hasn't been installed on the computer. In that case it would be run for each key/value pair in the hashtable.

@MartinGC94 @iSazonov
Apply suggestions from code review
2a952e9 
Co-authored-by: Ilya <darpa@yandex.ru>
iSazonov
iSazonov approved these changes Sep 30, 2022
View changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov left a comment

LGTM with one minor comment.

src/System.Management.Automation/engine/parser/TypeInferenceVisitor.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@MartinGC94 @iSazonov
Apply suggestions from code review
af65381 
Co-authored-by: Ilya <darpa@yandex.ru>
@pull-request-quantifier
Copy link

pull-request-quantifier bot commented Sep 30, 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       : +31 -15
Percentile : 18.4%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +23 -15
.ps1 : +8 -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? 👍  👌  👎 (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@iSazonov iSazonov

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw

Assignees

@anmenaga anmenaga

Labels
Extra Small Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@MartinGC94 @iSazonov @anmenaga
X Tutup