Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Improve assignment type inference#21143

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

Merged

Conversation

@MartinGC94
Copy link
Contributor

@MartinGC94MartinGC94 commentedJan 26, 2024
edited
Loading

PR Summary

Fix the assignment statement type inference to correctly infer its type based on the right side statement, rather than the left.

PR Context

This will fix the type inference for multiple variable assignments like:$Test1 = [string]$Test2 = $Test3 = $Test4 = 10 and also variables assigned with parentheses:$Test1 = ($Test2 = ls)

PR Checklist

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has4 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Extra SmallSize       : +3 -1Percentile : 1.6%Total files changed: 1Change summary by file extension:.cs : +3 -1

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.

@microsoft-github-policy-servicemicrosoft-github-policy-servicebot added the Review - NeededThe PR is being reviewed labelFeb 2, 2024
@iSazonoviSazonov added the CL-GeneralIndicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log labelMar 13, 2025
@MartinGC94MartinGC94 changed the titleWIP: Improve assignment type inferenceImprove assignment type inferenceMar 13, 2025
$res.Count| Should-Be1
$res.Name| Should-Be"System.String"
}

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see tests cases from the PR description:

This will fix the type inference for multiple variable assignments like: $Test1 = [string]$Test2 = $Test3 = $Test4 = 10 and also variables assigned with parentheses: $Test1 = ($Test2 = ls)

Copy link
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's because the examples from the description are practical examples of where the effect of this change can be felt. However, since the API lets us specify the exact Ast we want to infer, there is no need for the practical examples in the tests as we can make them more specific.

iSazonov reacted with thumbs up emoji
…sitor.csCo-authored-by: Ilya <darpa@yandex.ru>
@iSazonov

This comment was marked as outdated.

@azure-pipelines

This comment was marked as outdated.

@microsoft-github-policy-servicemicrosoft-github-policy-servicebot removed the Review - NeededThe PR is being reviewed labelMar 14, 2025
@iSazonoviSazonov added CL-GeneralIndicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log and removed CL-GeneralIndicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log labelsMar 14, 2025
@iSazonoviSazonov self-assigned thisMar 14, 2025
@iSazonoviSazonov merged commit1edd258 intoPowerShell:masterMar 18, 2025
40 of 43 checks passed
@microsoft-github-policy-service
Copy link
Contributor

microsoft-github-policy-servicebot commentedMar 18, 2025
edited by unfurl-linksbot
Loading

📣 Hey@MartinGC94, how did we do? We would love to hear your feedback with the link below! 🗣️

🔗https://aka.ms/PSRepoFeedback

@MartinGC94MartinGC94 deleted the ImproveAssignmentInference branchMarch 18, 2025 09:53
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@iSazonoviSazonoviSazonov approved these changes

@daxian-dbwdaxian-dbwAwaiting requested review from daxian-dbwdaxian-dbw is a code owner

@SeeminglyScienceSeeminglyScienceAwaiting requested review from SeeminglyScienceSeeminglyScience is a code owner

Assignees

@iSazonoviSazonov

Labels

CL-GeneralIndicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change LogExtra Small

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@MartinGC94@iSazonov

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp