Fix behaviour on status code requests.

[marabooy]

Issues

This pull request fixes issue #2511 .

Description

Briefly describe the changes of this pull request.
Fixes the usage of enable query for status code requests as they are not used within AspNetCore OData.
The api this.StatusCode(int, obj) returns an ObjectResult instead of a StatusCodeResult. and Object result is not a child of status code result.

The original intent seems to be when the ObjectResult is not null proceed to apply the query options.

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

• Test cases added
• Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

Additional work necessary

If documentation update is needed, please add "Docs Needed" label to the issue and provide details about the required document change in the issue.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 94 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       : +70 -24
Percentile : 37.6%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +70 -24

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 detetcted.
• 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.

[KenitoInc]

LGTM

[habbes]

Are there other return result types other than ObjectResult that we should care about? I see that IStatusCodeActionResult is the common interface of all action results that have a status code. Why not use that?

[habbes]

Looking further, it seems that there are a few other result types that have a Value, such as JsonResult, and there's also ContentResult which has Content. Is the assumption here that ObjectResult is the only one that has a Value that can be processed by [EnableQuery] and so we don't care about the rest?

[marabooy]

The interface exists for net core 2.2 and above. I just went through the code and patched the behaviour as we don't look at other items such as JsonResult and Content result.

[habbes]

Maybe you could remove this commented code.

It seems hat it as meant to throw an exception if the result was not an ObjectResult. I wonder why it was commented out. But I think it should be removed if it's not used.