Skip to content
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion .github/CODEOWNERS
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
# @BrucePay @JamesWTruher

# Area: Security
# @TravisEz13 @PaulHigin @chunqingchen
# @TravisEz13 @PaulHigin

# Area: Documentation
# @joeyaiello @TravisEz13
Expand Down
18 changes: 13 additions & 5 deletions .github/CONTRIBUTING.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -111,15 +111,23 @@ Additional references:

![Github-PR-dev.png](Images/Github-PR-dev.png)

* It's recommended to avoid a PR with too many changes.
A large PR not only stretches the review time, but also makes it much harder to spot issues.
In such case, it's better to split the PR to multiple smaller ones.
For large features, try to approach it in an incremental way, so that each PR won't be too big.
* If you're contributing in a way that changes the user or developer experience, you are expected to document those changes.
See [Contributing to documentation related to PowerShell](#contributing-to-documentation-related-to-powershell).
* Add a meaningful title of the PR describing what change you want to check in.
Don't simply put: "Fixes issue #5".
A better example is: "Add Ensure parameter to New-Item cmdlet", with "Fixes #5" in the PR's body.
Don't simply put: "Fix issue #5".
Also don't directly use the issue title as the PR title.
An issue title is to briefly describe what is wrong, while a PR title is to briefly describe what is changed.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I like this.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

May be worth adding that the body of the PR is used to create the ChangeLog, so try to have the first sentence explain benefit to end user

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added it to the doc.

A better example is: "Add Ensure parameter to New-Item cmdlet", with "Fix #5" in the PR's body.
* When you create a pull request,
including a summary of what's included in your changes and
if the changes are related to an existing GitHub issue,
please reference the issue in pull request description (e.g. ```Closes #11```).
including a summary about your changes in the PR description.
The description is used to create change logs,
so try to have the first sentence explain the benefit to end users.
If the changes are related to an existing GitHub issue,
please reference the issue in PR description (e.g. ```Fix #11```).
See [this][closing-via-message] for more details.
* If the change warrants a note in the [changelog](../CHANGELOG.MD)
either update the changelog in your pull request or
Expand Down
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions .spelling
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -955,3 +955,9 @@ microsoft.com
- ./tools/install-powershell.readme.md
includeide
sed
- docs/dev-process/coding-guidelines.md
interop
PaulHigin
SMEs
TravisEz13
uppercase
220 changes: 166 additions & 54 deletions docs/dev-process/coding-guidelines.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,92 +1,204 @@

# C# Coding Style
# C# Coding Guidelines

## Coding Conventions

As a general rule, our coding convention is to follow the style of the surrounding code.
Avoid reformatting any code when submitting a PR as it obscures the functional changes of your change.
We run the [.NET code formatter tool](https://github.com/dotnet/codeformatter) regularly help keep consistent formatting.
So if a file happens to differ in style from conventions defined here
(e.g. private members are named `m_member` rather than `_member`),
the existing style in that file takes precedence.

When making changes, you may find some existing code goes against the conventions defined here.
In such cases, please avoid reformatting any existing code when submitting a PR as it obscures the functional changes of the PR.
A separate PR should be submitted for style-only changes.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What is the preferred process?

  1. Block current PR1
  2. Open style PR and merge
  3. Rebase and continue PR1

or

  1. Open new tracking Issue
  2. Continue and merge current PR
  3. Open new PR to fix the tracking Issue - Should we address this to the author of the first PR?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here are my experiences:

  1. Depending on how bad the reformatting affects the review, I will choose to either tolerate the formatting changes or block the PR and ask the author to revert the formatting changes.

    • For example, some PRs has changes that remove the trailing spaces. When that kind of formatting changes doesn't affect review much, I will tolerate them.
    • But for some other PRs, the formatting changes might cause the review to be difficult, and I will block the PR and ask the author to revert formatting changes.
  2. We ask authors to revert the formatting changes and suggest them to submit a separate PR, but they are not required to submit a PR to fix the formatting. You can give them the choices as for how to revert the reformatting changes -- submit style PR and merge and then rebase the original PR is certainly one way to do it; or they can just revert the formatting changes and submit a style PR later.

  3. I don't like tracking issue in this situation.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I unlike tracking issue too. But without it we can forget and lost. So we should open style PR before continue original PR.

Copy link
Member Author

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw Sep 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we should make it a requirement for the author to submit a style-only PR in this situation. It's acceptable if they just revert the formatting changes, and it would be a plus if they are willing to go one step further to fix the style/formatting in a separate PR as well.

We also run the [.NET code formatter tool](https://github.com/dotnet/codeformatter) regularly to keep consistent formatting.

### Naming Conventions

* Use meaningful, descriptive words for names.
For method names, it's encouraged to use `VerbObject` pair such as **`LoadModule`**.

* Use `_camelCase` to name internal and private fields and use `readonly` where possible.
Prefix instance fields with `_`, static fields with `s_` and thread static fields with `t_`.
When used on static fields, `readonly` should come after `static` (i.e. `static readonly` not `readonly static`).

* Use `camelCase` to name non-constant local variables.

A basic rule of formatting is to use "Visual Studio defaults".
Here are some general guidelines
* Use `PascalCase` to name constant local variables and fields.
The only exception is for interop code where the constant should exactly match the name and value of the code you are calling via interop (e.g. `const int ERROR_SUCCESS = 0`).

* No tabs, indent 4 spaces.
* Braces usually go on their own line,
* Use `PascalCase` to name types and all other type members.

### Layout Conventions

* Use four spaces of indentation (no tabs).

* Avoid more than one blank empty line at any time.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe add "Split logical code blocks by one blank empty line. "
Maybe add "Split code regions by three blank empty lines." Ex.: some files define some classes.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The layout conventions are mostly from https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/Documentation/coding-guidelines/coding-style.md

I think we shouldn't go that details about how to use empty lines.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Closed.


* Avoid trailing spaces at the end of a line.

* Braces usually go on their own lines,
with the exception of single line statements that are properly indented.
* Use `_camelCase` for instance fields,
use `readonly` where possible.

* Namespace imports should be specified at the top of the file,
outside of `namespace` declarations.

* Fields should be specified at the top within type declarations.
For those that serve as backing fields for properties,
they should be specified next to the corresponding properties.

* Preprocessor directives like `#if` and `#endif` should be placed at the beginning of a line,
without any leading spaces.

* File encoding should be `ASCII`.
All `BOM` encodings should be avoided.
Tests that need a `BOM` encoding file should generate the file on the fly.

### Member Conventions

* Use of `this` is neither encouraged nor discouraged.
* Avoid more than one blank empty line.
* Public members should use [doc comments](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b2s063f7.aspx),
internal members may use doc comments but it is not encouraged.

* Use `nameof(<member-name>)` instead of `"<member-name>"` whenever possible and relevant.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry, could you please give me link with a sample?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's used a lot in Compiler.cs

Copy link
Contributor

@lzybkr lzybkr Sep 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The motivation here is to easily and more accurately find references - simple strings aren't always a reference.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for clarify.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Adding the motivation may help clarify the guidance.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@TravisEz13 the motivation is added.

The motivation is to easily and more accurately find references.

* Always specify the visibility, even if it's the default (i.e. `private string _foo` not `string _foo`).
Visibility should be the first modifier (i.e. `public abstract` not `abstract public`).

* Make members private where possible.
Avoid declaring public members unless it's absolutely necessary.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we get approve from PowerShell Committee for new public API?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, reviewer and maintainer should pay attention to public APIs and let the committee review public APIs.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry, will this added in the doc?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not in this doc as it's more of guideline or best practices for maintainers. I think a guideline (best practices) for maintainer would be useful.


* Public members in a namespace that ends with `Internal`,
for example `System.Management.Automation.Internal` are not considered a supported public API.
Such members are necessarily public as implementation details in code shared between C# and PowerShell script,
or must be available publicly by generated code.
* File encoding should be ASCII (preferred)
or UTF8 (with BOM) if absolutely necessary.

## Preprocessor defines
### Commenting Conventions

There are 3 primary preprocessor macros we define during builds:
* Place the comment on a separate line, not at the end of a line of code.

* DEBUG - guard code that should not be included in release builds
* CORECLR - guard code that differs between Full CLR and CoreCLR
* UNIX - guard code that is specific to Unix (Linux and macOS)
* Begin comment text with an uppercase letter.
It's recommended to end comment text with a period but not required.

Any other preprocessor defines found in the source are used for one-off custom builds,
typically to help debug specific scenarios.
* Add comments where the code is not trivial or could be confusing.

### Runtimes
* Add comments where a reviewer needs help to understand the code.

The PowerShell repo is used to build PowerShell targeting CoreCLR as well as CLR 4.5.
* Update/remove existing comments when you are changing the corresponding code.

Code under !CORECLR must build against CLR 4.5.
We will not accept changes that require a later version of the full CLR.
In extremely rare cases, we may use reflection to use an API in a later version of the CLR,
but the feature must robustly handle running with CLR 4.5.
* Make sure the added/updated comments are meaningful, accurate and easy to understand.

We may reject code under !CORECLR without explanation because
we do not support installation or testing of such code in this repo.
All new features should support CoreCLR.
* Public members must use [doc comments](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b2s063f7.aspx).
Internal and private members may use doc comments but it is not required.

## Performance considerations
## Performance Considerations

PowerShell has a lot of performance sensitive code as well as a lot of inefficient code.
We have some guidelines that we typically apply widely even in less important code
because code and patterns are copied we want certain inefficient code to stay out of the performance critical code.
We have some guidelines that we typically apply widely even in less important code because code and patterns are copied,
and we want certain inefficient code to stay out of the performance critical code.

Some general guidelines:

* Avoid LINQ - it can create lots of avoidable garbage
* Prefer `for` and `foreach`,
with a slight preference towards `for` when you're uncertain if `foreach` allocates an iterator.
* Avoid LINQ - it can create lots of avoidable garbage.
Instead, iterate through a collection directly using `for` or `foreach` loop.

* Between `for` and `foreach`,
`for` is slightly preferred when you're uncertain if `foreach` allocates an iterator.

* Avoid `params` arrays, prefer adding overloads with 1, 2, 3, and maybe more parameters.

* Be aware of APIs such as `String.Split(params char[])` that do not provide overloads to avoid array allocation.
When calling such APIs, reuse a static array when possible.
When calling such APIs, reuse a static array when possible (e.g. `Utils.Separators.Colon`).

* Avoid creating empty arrays.
Instead, reuse the static ones via `Utils.EmptyArray<T>`.

* Avoid unnecessary memory allocation in a loop.
Move the memory allocation outside the loop if possible.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I remember a recommendation to use static RegEx to benefit caching. Is this relevant? Maybe still mention compile RegEx and using StringBuilder if we have more 3-4 re-allocations.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think StringBuilder is worth mentioning -- string operations are quite common. RegEx is too specific to me.


## Portable code
* Avoid gratuitous exceptions as much as possible.
Exception handling can be expensive due to cache misses and page faults when accessing the handling code and data.
Finding and designing away exception-heavy code can result in a decent performance win.
For example, you should stay away from things like using exceptions for control flow.

* Avoid `if (obj is Example) { example = (Example)obj }` when casting an object to a type.
Instead, use `var example = obj as Example` or the C# 7 syntax `if (obj is Example example) {...}` as appropriate.
In this way you can avoid converting to the type twice.

* Use `dict.TryGetValue` instead of `dict.Contains` and `dict[..]` when retrieving value from a `Dictionary`.
In this way you can avoid hashing the key twice.

* It's OK to use the `+` operator to concatenate one-off short strings.
But when dealing with strings in loops or large amounts of text,
use a `StringBuilder` object.

## Security Considerations

Security is an important aspect of PowerShell and we need to be very careful about changes that may introduce security risks,
such as code injection caused by the lack of input validation,
privilege escalation due to the misuse of impersonation,
or data privacy breach with a plain text password.

Reviewers of a PR should be sensitive to changes that may affect security.
Some security related keywords may serve as good indicators,
such as `password`, `crypto`, `encryption`, `decryption`, `certificate`, `authenticate`, `ssl/tls` and `protected data`.

When facing a PR with such changes,
the reviewers should request a designated security Subject Matter Expert (SME) to review the PR.
Currently, @PaulHigin and @TravisEz13 are our security SMEs.
See [CODEOWNERS](../../.github/CODEOWNERS) for more information about the area experts.

## Best Practices
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe add that we should follow CoreFX everywhere:

  • use CoreFX APIs
  • request CoreFX to enhance API when we need the new API
  • fix CoreFX bugs in CoreFX repo

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think that belongs to coding best practices. And use CoreFX APIs is mentioned in the portable code section:

Going forward, we try to depend on .NET Core to handle platform differences,
so avoid adding new P/Invoke calls where a suitable alternative exists in .NET Core.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Closed.


The PowerShell code base started on Windows and depends on many Win32 APIs through P/Invoke.
Going forward, we try to depend on CoreCLR to handle platform differences,
so avoid adding new P/Invoke calls where a suitable alternative exists in .NET.
* Avoid hard-coding anything unless it's absolutely necessary.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry, what is " hard-coding"?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for clarify!


* Avoid a method that is too long and complex.
In such case, separate it to multiple methods or even a nested class as you see fit.

* Use `using` statement instead of `try/finally` if the only code in the `finally` block is to call the `Dispose` method.

* Use of object initializers (e.g. `new Example { Name = "Name", ID = 1 }`) is encouraged for better readability,
but not required.

* Stick to the `DRY` principle -- Don't Repeat Yourself.
* Wrap the commonly used code in methods,
or even put it in a utility class if that makes sense,
so that the same code can be reused (e.g. `StringToBase64Converter.Base64ToString(string)`).
* Check if the code for the same purpose already exists in the code base before inventing your own wheel.
* Avoid repeating literal strings in code. Instead, use `const` variable to hold the string.
* Resource strings used for errors or UI should be put in resource files (`.resx`) so that they can be localized later.

* Use of new C# language syntax is encouraged.
But avoid refactoring any existing code using new language syntax when submitting a PR
as it obscures the functional changes of the PR.
A separate PR should be submitted for such refactoring without any functional changes.

## Portable Code

There are 3 primary preprocessor macros we use during builds:

* `DEBUG` - guard code that should not be included in release builds
* `CORECLR` - guard code that differs between Full CLR and CoreCLR
* `UNIX` - guard code that is specific to Unix (Linux and macOS)

Any other preprocessor defines found in the source are used for one-off custom builds,
typically to help debug specific scenarios.

Try to minimize the use of `#if UNIX` and `#if CORECLR`.
When absolutely necessary, avoid duplicating more code than necessary,
and instead prefer introducing helper functions to minimize the platform differences.
Here are some general guidelines for writing portable code:

When adding platform dependent code, prefer preprocessor directives
over runtime checks.
* We are in the process of cleaning up Full CLR specific code (code enclosed in `!CORECLR`),
so do not use `CORECLR` or `!CORECLR` in new code.
PowerShell Core targets .NET Core only and all new changes should support .NET Core only.

We produce a single binary for all UNIX variants,
so runtime checks are currently necessary for some platform differences, e.g. macOS and Linux.
* The PowerShell code base started on Windows and depends on many Win32 APIs through P/Invoke.
Going forward, we try to depend on .NET Core to handle platform differences,
so avoid adding new P/Invoke calls where a suitable alternative exists in .NET Core.

## Code comments
* Try to minimize the use of `#if UNIX`.
When absolutely necessary, avoid duplicating more code than necessary,
and instead prefer introducing helper functions to minimize the platform differences.

It's strongly encouraged to add comments when you are making changes to the code and tests,
especially when the changes are not trivial or may raise confusion.
Make sure the added comments are accurate and easy to understand.
Good code comments would greatly improve readability of the code, and make it much more maintainable.
* When adding platform dependent code (`Windows` vs. `UNIX`), prefer preprocessor directives over runtime checks.
However, runtime checks are acceptable if it would greatly improve readability
without causing performance concerns in performance-sensitive code.

* We produce a single binary for all UNIX variants,
so runtime checks are currently necessary for some of them (e.g. macOS vs. Linux).
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we require the directives to be placed at the beginning of the line?
(VS Code expand/collapse right the directives only if they indent with surrounding code - should we consider this as bug or we can indent the directives?)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will mention this in this section.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Mentioned in ### Layout Conventions as it's related to the code layout.