Skip to content

Update the FeedbackProvider interface to return structured data #19133

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
Feb 23, 2023
Merged

Update the FeedbackProvider interface to return structured data #19133

daxian-dbw merged 10 commits into from
Feb 23, 2023

Conversation

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw commented Feb 11, 2023 •
edited
Loading

PR Summary

The GetFeedback method used to return a string. Update it to return structured data instead, which allows us to do a better job in displaying the feedback. Note that, this is a breaking change comparing to 7.4.0-preview.1.

The structured data FeedbackItem also allows a feedback provider to return more than one feedback items at a time by having the property Next to point to the next feedback item. It may be an uncommon scenario, but it would be nice to allow it with little or no overhead to the common scenario.

With the structured data, the rendering of feedback is improved. The old view can be found in #18252, and below is the new view:

image

Now, we have a better view even if the recommended actions from the feedback is code snippet (of course, it would awesome if the code snippets are syntax highlighted, but that would be a future enhancement😃):

image

PR Checklist

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw requested a review from anmenaga as a code owner February 11, 2023 00:30
@ghost ghost assigned iSazonov Feb 11, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw assigned daxian-dbw and unassigned iSazonov Feb 11, 2023
iSazonov
iSazonov reviewed Feb 11, 2023
View reviewed changes
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added the CL-Engine Indicates that a PR should be marked as an engine change in the Change Log label Feb 17, 2023
iSazonov
iSazonov reviewed Feb 17, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM with minor comments.

SeeminglyScience
SeeminglyScience approved these changes Feb 22, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience 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 with one optional recommendation

(also, very cool changes! Very exciting UX improvements 🙂)

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated bot commented Feb 22, 2023

This PR has 318 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Large
Size       : +204 -114
Percentile : 71.8%

Total files changed: 9

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +200 -112
.resx : +4 -2

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 merged commit 79b4b5c into PowerShell:master Feb 23, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw deleted the feedback branch February 23, 2023 00:01
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2023
Merged
@adityapatwardhan adityapatwardhan mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2023
Merged
22 tasks
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 14, 2023

🎉v7.4.0-preview.2 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

@microhobby
Copy link

microhobby commented Mar 26, 2023

Hey @daxian-dbw very cool features, thanks for the work. There is a way to get these suggestions programmatically in a script?

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member Author

daxian-dbw commented Mar 28, 2023

Yeah, you can programmatically get the available feedback, by

PS:2> [System.Management.Automation.Subsystem.Feedback.FeedbackHub]::GetFeedback

OverloadDefinitions
-------------------
static System.Collections.Generic.List[System.Management.Automation.Subsystem.Feedback.FeedbackResult] GetFeedback(runspace runspace)
static System.Collections.Generic.List[System.Management.Automation.Subsystem.Feedback.FeedbackResult] GetFeedback(runspace runspace, int
millisecondsTimeout)

This was referenced Mar 29, 2023
Open
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@iSazonov iSazonov iSazonov left review comments

@SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience approved these changes

@anmenaga anmenaga Awaiting requested review from anmenaga

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

@PaulHigin PaulHigin Awaiting requested review from PaulHigin

Assignees

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw

Labels

CL-Engine Indicates that a PR should be marked as an engine change in the Change Log Large

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@daxian-dbw @microhobby @iSazonov @SeeminglyScience