X Tutup
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20240501030205/https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/pull/21368
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

Revert the PR #17856 (Do not preserve temporary results when no need to do so) #21368

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Mar 25, 2024

Conversation

daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw commented Mar 24, 2024

PR Summary

Fix #20739 by reverting the PR that caused this regression: #17856

#17856 causes the return value from a ReturnStatement to not be preserved too, which breaks an expected behavior.

This is the difference compared with the same code section from v7.3. After this change, the only difference is the updated comments.

image

Here is the relevant code section in v7.3:

switch (context)
{
case CaptureAstContext.AssignmentWithResultPreservation:
case CaptureAstContext.AssignmentWithoutResultPreservation:
result = Expression.Call(CachedReflectionInfo.PipelineOps_PipelineResult, resultList);
// Clear the temporary pipe in case of exception, if we are not required to preserve the results
if (context == CaptureAstContext.AssignmentWithoutResultPreservation)
{
var catchExprs = new List<Expression>
{
Expression.Call(CachedReflectionInfo.PipelineOps_ClearPipe, resultList),
Expression.Rethrow(),
Expression.Constant(null, typeof(object))
};
catches.Add(Expression.Catch(typeof(RuntimeException), Expression.Block(typeof(object), catchExprs)));
}
// PipelineResult might get skipped in some circumstances due to a FlowControlException thrown out, in which case
// we write to the oldPipe. This can happen in cases like:
// $(1;2;return 3)
finallyExprs.Add(Expression.Call(CachedReflectionInfo.PipelineOps_FlushPipe, oldPipe, resultList));
break;
case CaptureAstContext.Condition:
result = DynamicExpression.Dynamic(PSPipelineResultToBoolBinder.Get(), typeof(bool), resultList);
break;
case CaptureAstContext.Enumerable:
result = resultList;
break;
default:
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(context));
}

PR Checklist

This PR has 28 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       : +7 -21
Percentile : 11.2%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +7 -8
.ps1 : +0 -13

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.

@daxian-dbw

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as outdated.

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw closed this Mar 25, 2024
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw reopened this Mar 25, 2024
@JamesWTruher
Copy link
Member

not only should we do the revert, but we need to improve validation so we don't get caught by this again. I quickly saw the added validation, but couldn't see how we didn't catch this.

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as outdated.

1 similar comment

This PR has 42 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 -21
Percentile : 16.8%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +7 -8
.ps1 : +14 -13

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.

It 'Return statement on the right side of an assignment should write the retrun value to outer pipe' {
function TestFunc1 {
## The return value are not assigned to the variable but should be written to the outer pipe.
$Global:mylhsvar = if ($true) { return "one" }
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It might be worth adding a few more tests here as using return changes the behavior significantly

Copy link
Member

@JamesWTruher JamesWTruher left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we should add more validation eventually

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit 171d9df into PowerShell:master Mar 25, 2024
14 of 15 checks passed
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw deleted the regression branch March 25, 2024 21:09
SeeminglyScience pushed a commit to SeeminglyScience/PowerShell that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2024
daxian-dbw pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
BackPort-7.4.x-Done CL-Engine Indicates that a PR should be marked as an engine change in the Change Log Extra Small
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Unexpected Behavior of return in Switch Block
3 participants
X Tutup