Skip to content

Conversation

@VeVrX
Copy link

@VeVrX VeVrX commented Dec 6, 2021

PR Summary

Fix #15186 - To comply with RFC7230, empty body should not be added for Get Methods

PR Context

PR Checklist

To comply with RFC7230, empty body should not be added for Get Methods
@VeVrX VeVrX requested a review from PaulHigin as a code owner December 6, 2021 17:39
@ghost ghost assigned TravisEz13 Dec 6, 2021
@TravisEz13 TravisEz13 changed the title Fix #15186 WebCmdlets: empty body should not be added for Get Methods Dec 6, 2021
Copy link
Member

@TravisEz13 TravisEz13 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see comments

@ghost ghost added the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label Dec 6, 2021
…Cmdlet/Common/WebRequestPSCmdlet.Common.cs

Co-authored-by: Travis Plunk <travis.plunk@microsoft.com>
@ghost ghost removed the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label Dec 6, 2021
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 4 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       : +3 -1
Percentile : 1.6%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +3 -1

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? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@TravisEz13
Copy link
Member

@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Dec 14, 2021
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Dec 14, 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

Oh, it is dup of #16587 and it seems the fix cover more scenarios but haven't tests. We need resolve the conflict and combine the PRs.

@ghost ghost removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Dec 15, 2021
@SteveL-MSFT
Copy link
Member

Closing this PR as #16587 covers this and has necessary test changes

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

@VeVrX Thanks for your contribution! Sorry for the PR conflict.

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Invoke-WebRequest/Invoke-RestMethod: PR #10034 violates RFC7230 and therefore breaks HTTP Desync Mitigation modes

4 participants