Skip to content

Make New-Item -Force overwrite on Junction #18311

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
Merged
daxian-dbw merged 10 commits into from
May 2, 2023
Merged

Make New-Item -Force overwrite on Junction #18311

daxian-dbw merged 10 commits into from
May 2, 2023

Conversation

@GigaScratch
Copy link
Contributor

@GigaScratch GigaScratch commented Oct 17, 2022 •
edited
Loading

PR Summary

When performing New-Item <itemname> -Type Junction -Value <path> -Force, it will fail with "<path> cannot be removed because it is not empty.".

This has been resolved by moving the Child Item check from before force is checked, to the else condition of the force check.

PR Context

This PR aims to fix #17656.

PR Checklist

@GigaScratch GigaScratch requested a review from anmenaga as a code owner October 17, 2022 06:12
@ghost ghost assigned iSazonov Oct 17, 2022
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 17, 2022 •
edited by ghost
Loading

CLA assistant check
All CLA requirements met.

@GigaScratch
Copy link
Contributor Author

GigaScratch commented Oct 17, 2022

Making this WIP as my build environment is unhappy so I'll be testing off the build artifact. 😅

GigaScratch
GigaScratch commented Oct 17, 2022
View reviewed changes
@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

iSazonov commented Oct 17, 2022

@GigaScratch Please add a test.

@iSazonov iSazonov added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label Oct 17, 2022
@GigaScratch
Copy link
Contributor Author

GigaScratch commented Oct 18, 2022

@GigaScratch Please add a test.
@iSazonov Can you please provide guideance as to where tests for New-Item/ FileSystemProvidershould go? I tried searching for New-Item and Junction and System.Mangement.Automation through a few contexts but they're broadly used in standard PS tests so much that I can't actually find the test area dedicated to them.

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

iSazonov commented Oct 18, 2022

You could look
Describe "Hard link and symbolic link tests" -Tags "CI", "RequireAdminOnWindows"
in FileSystem.Tests.ps1

@GigaScratch
Copy link
Contributor Author

GigaScratch commented Oct 18, 2022

Please add a test.

I added a simple overwrite test, but ideally I would like a way to verify that the object created is actually new and to throw an error if it is not.
In a FAT32 or EXFAT FS I would just compare the creation date by epoch, but afaik Windows doesn't store the milliseconds in item creation 😐. Is there a way you would recommend to compare the first and second junction to verify the second is actually new?

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

iSazonov commented Oct 18, 2022

You could use another target in second New-Item and check that target is changed after first command.

@GigaScratch GigaScratch changed the title WIP:Make New-Item -Force overwrite on Junction Make New-Item -Force overwrite on Junction Oct 18, 2022
iSazonov
iSazonov requested changes Oct 18, 2022
View reviewed changes
@ghost ghost added the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label Oct 18, 2022
@iSazonov iSazonov added the Hacktoberfest-Accepted Accepted to participate in Hacktoberfest label Oct 18, 2022
@iSazonov iSazonov requested a review from SteveL-MSFT October 18, 2022 10:59
@ghost ghost removed the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label Oct 19, 2022
iSazonov
iSazonov reviewed Oct 19, 2022
View reviewed changes
@iSazonov iSazonov added the Hacktoberfest Potential candidate to participate in Hacktoberfest label Oct 19, 2022
iSazonov
iSazonov reviewed Oct 19, 2022
View reviewed changes
@GigaScratch
Copy link
Contributor Author

GigaScratch commented Oct 19, 2022 •
edited
Loading

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

1 similar comment
@GigaScratch
Copy link
Contributor Author

GigaScratch commented Oct 19, 2022

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Oct 27, 2022
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 27, 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

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated bot commented May 2, 2023

This PR has 38 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       : +23 -15
Percentile : 15.2%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +13 -15
.ps1 : +10 -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.

daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw approved these changes May 2, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Made a quick fix and rebased the branch.

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit 05fbceb into PowerShell:master May 2, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label May 2, 2023
@sdwheeler sdwheeler added the PowerShell-Docs not needed The PR was reviewed and doesn't appear to require a PowerShell Docs update label Jun 1, 2023
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 29, 2023

🎉v7.4.0-preview.4 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Jun 29, 2023
Closed
5 tasks
@sdwheeler sdwheeler mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2023
Closed
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 approved these changes

@iSazonov iSazonov iSazonov approved these changes

@anmenaga anmenaga Awaiting requested review from anmenaga

@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT Awaiting requested review from SteveL-MSFT

Assignees

@iSazonov iSazonov

Labels

CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log Extra Small Hacktoberfest Potential candidate to participate in Hacktoberfest Hacktoberfest-Accepted Accepted to participate in Hacktoberfest PowerShell-Docs not needed The PR was reviewed and doesn't appear to require a PowerShell Docs update

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

New-Item -Force does not have expected behavior for all types

4 participants

@GigaScratch @iSazonov @daxian-dbw @sdwheeler