Skip to content

Fix ConciseView to handle custom ParserError ErrorRecords #19239

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 8 commits into from
Mar 1, 2023
Merged

Fix ConciseView to handle custom ParserError ErrorRecords #19239

daxian-dbw merged 8 commits into from
Mar 1, 2023

Conversation

@SteveL-MSFT
Copy link
Member

@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT commented Feb 27, 2023 •
edited by daxian-dbw
Loading

PR Summary

The fundamental issue is that ConciseView has code to handle PowerShell ParserError category, but the cmdlet in the issue was returning an ErrorRecord with that category (which is allowed), but the ConciseView script was only expecting an object that looked like what PowerShell would return. See the comment thread #19239 (comment) for some more details.

During execution of this script during formatting, what you get an a ParseException is actually an ErrorRecord where the Exception is a ParentContainsErrorRecordException. So the way to check it's a parse error from PowerShell is to check that the Category is ParseError and the Exception type is ParentContainsErrorRecordException. Not ideal, but the ParseException seems to be created somewhere else that gets put onto $Error but not available to the script during formatting.

Also added a trap at the start of that script in case there are other unknown issues so that users will get an error message that can be reported to us rather than no error.

Note that the actual issue, however, only repros over remoting which does it's own wrapping of remote errors so a PS Job is used for the test to cover this case.

PR Context

Fix #19223

PR Checklist

@ghost ghost assigned anmenaga Feb 27, 2023
daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw reviewed Feb 28, 2023
View reviewed changes
SteveL-MSFT and others added 3 commits February 27, 2023 17:20
@SteveL-MSFT @daxian-dbw
Update src/System.Management.Automation/FormatAndOutput/DefaultFormat…
f554b74 
…ters/PowerShellCore_format_ps1xml.cs

Co-authored-by: Dongbo Wang <dongbow@microsoft.com>
@SteveL-MSFT @daxian-dbw
Update src/System.Management.Automation/FormatAndOutput/DefaultFormat…
1e6339e 
…ters/PowerShellCore_format_ps1xml.cs

Co-authored-by: Dongbo Wang <dongbow@microsoft.com>
@SteveL-MSFT
add space separating code and comment
5bef8de
daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw approved these changes Feb 28, 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. Just a minor suggestion to reduce a pair of parentheses.

@SteveL-MSFT @daxian-dbw
Update src/System.Management.Automation/FormatAndOutput/DefaultFormat…
0008479 
…ters/PowerShellCore_format_ps1xml.cs

Co-authored-by: Dongbo Wang <dongbow@microsoft.com>
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated bot commented Mar 1, 2023

This PR has 22 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       : +19 -3
Percentile : 8.8%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +7 -2
.ps1 : +12 -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 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 assigned daxian-dbw and unassigned anmenaga Mar 1, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added the CL-Engine Indicates that a PR should be marked as an engine change in the Change Log label Mar 1, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit ec258e2 into PowerShell:master Mar 1, 2023
@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT deleted the parser-errorview branch March 2, 2023 14:30
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 14, 2023

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

Handy links:

@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Mar 14, 2023
Closed
5 tasks
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 13, 2023

🎉v7.3.4 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

adityapatwardhan pushed a commit to adityapatwardhan/PowerShell that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2023
@SteveL-MSFT @daxian-dbw
Fix ConciseView to handle custom ParserError error records (Power…
1d3bad9 
…Shell#19239)
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

@JamesWTruher JamesWTruher Awaiting requested review from JamesWTruher

@SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience Awaiting requested review from SeeminglyScience

Assignees

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw

Labels

Backport-7.3.x-Done CL-Engine Indicates that a PR should be marked as an engine change in the Change Log Extra Small

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Convertfrom-cipolicy cmdlet error isn't being displayed on the console in PowerShell 7.3.3

3 participants

@SteveL-MSFT @daxian-dbw @anmenaga