Skip to content

Conversation

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

PR Summary

Increase the timeout when waiting for the event log.
This is to fix a flaky Group policy settings test in our CI:

  Describing Group policy settings tests
    Context Group policy settings tests
+
      [-] Module logging policy test 5.73s
        Expected $true, but got $false.
        94:                         Should -BeTrue
        at TestFeature, D:\a\1\s\test\powershell\engine\Basic\GroupPolicySettings.Tests.ps1: line 92
        at <ScriptBlock>, D:\a\1\s\test\powershell\engine\Basic\GroupPolicySettings.Tests.ps1: line 100

CI link: https://dev.azure.com/powershell/PowerShell/_build/results?buildId=124341&view=logs&j=99798060-e5bf-55b9-b3b5-109e6acacce3&t=b493f01d-4a7a-51fa-c890-01f5c3320034&l=316

PR Checklist

@ghost ghost assigned anmenaga Mar 2, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw assigned daxian-dbw and unassigned anmenaga Mar 2, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added the CL-Test Indicates that a PR should be marked as a test change in the Change Log label Mar 2, 2023
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

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       : +1 -1
Percentile : 0.8%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.ps1 : +1 -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.

@CarloToso
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe we could do the same thing for WebListener #19198

@TravisEz13 TravisEz13 merged commit a26a8d9 into PowerShell:master Mar 2, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw deleted the codecov branch March 2, 2023 21:22
@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member Author

@CarloToso Good point. Why not? PR submitted: #19268

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

iSazonov commented Mar 3, 2023

Many thanks! It's been bugging me lately.

@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
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 27, 2023

🎉v7.3.5 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

Labels

Backport-7.2.x-Done Backport-7.3.x-Done CL-Test Indicates that a PR should be marked as a test change in the Change Log Extra Small

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants