Skip to content

Replace Requires.NotNullOrEmpty(string) with ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty #19197

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 2 commits into from
Feb 24, 2023
Merged

Replace Requires.NotNullOrEmpty(string) with ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty #19197

daxian-dbw merged 2 commits into from
Feb 24, 2023

Conversation

@xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor

@xtqqczze xtqqczze commented Feb 22, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Breaking change: Bucket 3: Unlikely Grey Area

This PR makes changes to public APIs so that an ArgumentException is thrown instead of ArgumentNullException when a string is empty rather than null.

If a consumer caught the ArgumentNullException and not the base class ArgumentException this is a change in behavior.

However, it seems unlikely to depend on a specific exception being thrown, because if specific behavior was required, the caller could have implemented the necessary business logic.

@ghost ghost assigned daxian-dbw Feb 22, 2023
@xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor Author

xtqqczze commented Feb 22, 2023

@daxian-dbw Please mark Review - Maintainer.

@xtqqczze xtqqczze mentioned this pull request Feb 22, 2023
Merged
13 tasks
@xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor Author

xtqqczze commented Feb 22, 2023 •
edited
Loading

PowerShell-CI-macos (Test for macOS mac Test - UnelevatedPesterTests - Others test failure: #19198

@xtqqczze xtqqczze marked this pull request as ready for review February 22, 2023 23:28
@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

daxian-dbw commented Feb 23, 2023

I think this change is fine. But you need to rebase with the master, because #19133 introduces another use of the Requires.NotNullOrEmpty(string value, string paramName). So, you need to update that one as well. Thanks!

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added the CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log label Feb 23, 2023
@iSazonov iSazonov self-requested a review February 23, 2023 04:08
@xtqqczze xtqqczze mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2023
Closed
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label Feb 23, 2023
@xtqqczze xtqqczze force-pushed the Requires.NotNullOrEmpty branch from 375a8c8 to f16cb79 Compare February 24, 2023 00:03
@ghost ghost removed the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label Feb 24, 2023
daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw approved these changes Feb 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated bot commented Feb 24, 2023

This PR has 11 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       : +4 -7
Percentile : 4.4%

Total files changed: 4

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +4 -7

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 7441276 into PowerShell:master Feb 24, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2023
Closed
@xtqqczze xtqqczze deleted the Requires.NotNullOrEmpty branch February 24, 2023 18:19
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 14, 2023

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

Handy links:

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

Assignees

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw

Labels

CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log Extra Small

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@xtqqczze @daxian-dbw @iSazonov