X Tutup
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20240525060803/https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/pull/21000
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

ConvertTo-Json: Serialize BigInteger as a number #21000

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Feb 27, 2024

Conversation

jborean93
Copy link
Collaborator

PR Summary

Serializes a BigInteger value as a raw JSON number rather than the object's properties which does not contain the BigInteger value.

This is technically a breaking change, I went ahead with the PR anyway to see if it was actually possible to do (it is). Waiting for the triage outcome of #20989 (comment) to see if this breaking change is ok or not.

PR Context

Fixes: #20989

PR Checklist

Serializes a BigInteger value as a raw JSON number rather than the
object's properties which does not contain the BigInteger value.
@@ -519,6 +520,10 @@ private static object ProcessValue(object obj, int currentDepth, in ConvertToJso
{
rv = jObject.ToObject<Dictionary<object, object>>();
}
else if (obj is BigInteger bi)
{
rv = new JRaw(bi.ToString(NumberFormatInfo.InvariantInfo));
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do we need JRaw?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So the value isn’t quoted and is a literal numeric value.

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 should use string if we agree with #20999 (comment)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jborean93 jborean93 Jan 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Personally I don't see why we should but I'll leave it up to the WG decision in the end.

If they do decide to quote BigIntegers so then it should only happen if the value is larger than the Javascript precision value. I would have to say I really don’t think it’s a good idea as it complicates the cmdlet even more.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Turns out it isn't needed we just need to ensure the value is the BigInteger itself and we don't do PowerShell's property enumerator.

@iSazonov iSazonov added WG-Cmdlets-Utility cmdlets in the Microsoft.PowerShell.Utility module CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log WG-NeedsReview Needs a review by the labeled Working Group Breaking-Change breaking change that may affect users CL-BreakingChange Indicates that a PR should be marked as a breaking change in the Change Log labels Jan 5, 2024

This PR has 10 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       : +9 -1
Percentile : 4%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +3 -1
.ps1 : +6 -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
Copy link
Member

The WG agrees that the same reasoning in #20999 (comment) applies here

@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Feb 21, 2024
@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT added Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed WG-Reviewed A Working Group has reviewed this and made a recommendation and removed WG-NeedsReview Needs a review by the labeled Working Group labels Feb 21, 2024
@microsoft-github-policy-service microsoft-github-policy-service bot removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Feb 21, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Thanks @jborean93!

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit fcf4953 into PowerShell:master Feb 27, 2024
38 checks passed
Copy link
Contributor

microsoft-github-policy-service bot commented Feb 27, 2024

📣 Hey @jborean93, how did we do? We would love to hear your feedback with the link below! 🗣️

🔗 https://aka.ms/PSRepoFeedback

@jborean93 jborean93 deleted the json-biginteger branch February 27, 2024 23:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Breaking-Change breaking change that may affect users CL-BreakingChange Indicates that a PR should be marked as a breaking change in the Change Log CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log Extra Small WG-Cmdlets-Utility cmdlets in the Microsoft.PowerShell.Utility module WG-Reviewed A Working Group has reviewed this and made a recommendation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Serializing bigint value to JSON emits incorrect JSON
5 participants
X Tutup