Skip to content

Remove unused string completion code #19879

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 1 commit into from
Jul 10, 2023
Merged

Remove unused string completion code #19879

daxian-dbw merged 1 commit into from
Jul 10, 2023

Conversation

@MartinGC94
Copy link
Contributor

@MartinGC94 MartinGC94 commented Jul 1, 2023

PR Summary

Removes unused code for completing members in double quoted strings.
The idea seems to have been that users would have been able to enter a variable, or literal type in a double quoted string and tab complete the member to auto convert it into a subexpression like this:

"Hello$MyVar.<Tab> -> "Hello$($MyVar.MyMember)
"Hello[string]::<Tab> -> "Hello$([string]::Empty)

But the actual code isn't working.
An obvious alternative to removing the code would be to fix it but I've never seen anyone request this and it doesn't seem very useful to me.

PR Context

PR Checklist

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

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

This PR has 89 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Small
Size       : +24 -65
Percentile : 35.6%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +24 -65

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.

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

iSazonov commented Jul 3, 2023

I'd prefer this work and in @"" too.

@MartinGC94
Copy link
Contributor Author

MartinGC94 commented Jul 8, 2023

@iSazonov (and @fflaten since I see you gave a 👍) do you care about the type literal member completion? Or is it just the variable member completion you would like to see? There wouldn't be any completion for the type literal itself so you would have to enter the whole typename yourself before the member completion would be able to change it to a subexpression.

As for the here-string completion, that's definitely out of scope for now as I'm waiting on my proposed here-string syntax changes to either get merged or rejected.

@fflaten
Copy link
Contributor

fflaten commented Jul 8, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Variable member completion for me. Sounds like a nice way to introduce the subexpression-requirement for new users considering variable completion itself works (unlike type completion).

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

iSazonov commented Jul 9, 2023

I mainly mean that if PowerShell allows code between double quotes, then it would be logical to expect IntelliSense to work exactly the same as in normal mode.

@MartinGC94
Copy link
Contributor Author

MartinGC94 commented Jul 9, 2023

@iSazonov Well, that's just the thing. PowerShell doesn't allow that syntax inside strings, you need a subexpression, and inside subexpressions the tab completion works as you would expect. This is just "magic" code that infers that the user probably wants to access a member so it adds the subexpression for the user.

daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw approved these changes Jul 10, 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.

The changes indicate that the isQuotedString parameter is never passed in a true value, making all related code not used.
Given that this targets an uncommon scenario, I'm fine with removing the dead code to reduce complexity.

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added WG-Engine core PowerShell engine, interpreter, and runtime CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log labels Jul 10, 2023
@SeeminglyScience
Copy link
Collaborator

SeeminglyScience commented Jul 10, 2023

The changes indicate that the isQuotedString parameter is never passed in a true value, making all related code not used. Given that this targets an uncommon scenario, I'm fine with removing the dead code to reduce complexity.

Yeah I'm inclined to agree. Especially since removing the method isn't causing any build errors so we're not missing another invocation (and the compiler wouldn't be calling this with reflection so we're safe there). LGTM

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit 612857a into PowerShell:master Jul 10, 2023
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

@SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log Small WG-Engine core PowerShell engine, interpreter, and runtime

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@MartinGC94 @iSazonov @fflaten @SeeminglyScience @daxian-dbw