Skip to content

Enable all experimental features by default in preview version #16842

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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
Closed
iSazonov wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Enable all experimental features by default in preview version #16842

iSazonov wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov commented Feb 4, 2022

PR Summary

Implement the proposal from #16837 (comment)

PR Context

PR Checklist

@iSazonov iSazonov added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label Feb 4, 2022
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated bot commented Feb 4, 2022

This PR has 2 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       : +2 -0
Percentile : 0.8%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +2 -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 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.

@ghost ghost assigned daxian-dbw Feb 4, 2022
daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw requested changes Feb 8, 2022
View reviewed changes
src/System.Management.Automation/engine/ExperimentalFeature/ExperimentalFeature.cs
// if no experimental features are configured in pwsh.config.json file
// and pwsh version is preview
// then we enable all experimental features by default.
enabledFeatures = engineFeatures.Select(static f => f.Name).ToArray();
Copy link
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw Feb 8, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This won't work. Modules can declare experimental features which are not in engineFeatures.
It would need a more sophisticated change than this.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@iSazonov iSazonov Feb 8, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For in-box modules they are in (could be in) engineFeatures.
For out-box modules it should be up to the authors of these modules to decide if they want to include experimental features by default.

Copy link
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw Feb 8, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For in-box modules they are in (could be in) engineFeatures.

They are not by design, to be equivalent to any other modules and go through the same discovery path.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@iSazonov iSazonov Feb 8, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not have them in engineFeatures?

Copy link
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw Feb 8, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because

  1. it's not necessary from the developer's perspective -- the module manifest already needs to have the experimental feature declared.
  2. it should be the same as any other module and exercise the same discovery code path.

We are not going to add a burden to the developer just for making the build easier, especially given that the build changes are already done.

@ghost ghost added Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept and removed Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept labels Feb 8, 2022
@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

daxian-dbw commented Feb 8, 2022

Thinking about this proposal a bit more, I found it may not be a good idea to bake this in code (preview: always enable all built-in experimental features by default; stable: always disable all built-in experimental features by default).

It's possible for 2 experimental features to be contradict to each other by design -- there are 2 different UX that we want to explore, and thus having them guarded by 2 different experimental features. In this case, they won't work together when all are enabled, so PowerShell may get in an unstable state if both are enabled by default in preview.

Given this, I think it's better to keep doing this in build scripts, to allow maximum flexibility.

@iSazonov iSazonov closed this Feb 8, 2022
@iSazonov iSazonov deleted the enable-experimental-features branch February 8, 2022 18:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw daxian-dbw requested changes

@adityapatwardhan adityapatwardhan Awaiting requested review from adityapatwardhan

Assignees

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw

Labels

CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log Extra Small

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@iSazonov @daxian-dbw