NotificationsYou must be signed in to change notification settings
Fork7.7k
Star48k

Handle type inference for redirected commands#21131

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.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Merged

iSazonov merged 4 commits intoPowerShell:masterfromMartinGC94:TypeInferenceForRedirectedCmds

Feb 28, 2025

Merged

Handle type inference for redirected commands#21131

iSazonov merged 4 commits intoPowerShell:masterfromMartinGC94:TypeInferenceForRedirectedCmds

Feb 28, 2025

Conversation

Copy link

Contributor

MartinGC94 commentedJan 22, 2024

PR Summary

Updates the type inference for commands to also take stream redirections into account, both when redirecting the success stream (meaning it doesn't output anything) or when merging other streams (Error, Warning, etc.) into the success stream.

PR Context

PR Checklist

PR has a meaningful title
- Use the present tense and imperative mood when describing your changes
Summarized changes
Make sure all.h,.cpp,.cs,.ps1 and.psm1 files have the correct copyright header
This PR is ready to merge and is notWork in Progress.
- If the PR is work in progress, please add the prefixWIP: or[ WIP ] to the beginning of the title (theWIP bot will keep its status check atPending while the prefix is present) and remove the prefix when the PR is ready.
Breaking changes
- None
- OR
- Experimental feature(s) needed
  - Experimental feature name(s):
User-facing changes
- Not Applicable
- OR
- Documentation needed
  - Issue filed:
Testing - New and feature
- N/A or can only be tested interactively
- OR
- Make sure you've added a new test if existing tests do not effectively test the code changed
Tooling
- I have considered the user experience from a tooling perspective and don't believe tooling will be impacted.
- OR
- I have considered the user experience from a tooling perspective and opened an issue in the relevant tool repository. This may include:
  - Impact onPowerShell Editor Services which is used in thePowerShell extension for VSCode
    (which runs in a different PS Host).
    - Issue filed:
  - Impact on Completions (both in the console and in editors) - one of PowerShell's most powerful features.
    - Issue filed:
  - Impact onPSScriptAnalyzer (which provides linting & formatting in the editor extensions).
    - Issue filed:
  - Impact onEditorSyntax (which provides syntax highlighting with in VSCode, GitHub, and many other editors).
    - Issue filed:

Handle type inference for redirected commands

90ea19d

MartinGC94 requested a review fromdaxian-dbw as acode owner

January 22, 2024 14:18

pull-request-quantifier-deprecatedbot added the Small label

Jan 22, 2024

Copy link

pull-request-quantifier-deprecatedbot commentedJan 22, 2024

This PR has61 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details

Label      : SmallSize       : +61 -0Percentile : 24.4%Total files changed: 2Change summary by file extension:.cs : +38 -0.ps1 : +23 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on thePullRequestQuantifier 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 thecontext 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 theExcluded section from yourprquantifier.yaml context profile.
- Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in yourprquantifier.yaml context profile.
- Only use the labels that matter to you,see context specification to customize yourprquantifier.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.