Remove File.ResolveLinkTarget from IsWindowsApplication

[iSazonov]

PR Summary

As discussed in #16295 we will not get public API for AppX from Windows team so we should remove our workaround for AppX. See #16295 (comment) for details.

As for the symbolic link, it's not well handled in NativeCommandProcessor on Windows today, and that's tracked by #16171.

(Ideally we would need a public AppX API to detect whether the application is a console one or Windows GUI.)

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 not Work in Progress.
  • If the PR is work in progress, please add the prefix WIP: or [ WIP ] to the beginning of the title (the WIP bot will keep its status check at Pending 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

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 5 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +0 -5
Percentile : 2%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +0 -5

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.

[daxian-dbw]

LGTM

[jborean93]

I still think in leau of a public API for AppExecLinks we should delay the checking of the exe type to after the process has started. This results in Windows doing the resolution for you.

[daxian-dbw]

Thanks @jborean93 for finding that workaround -- I learnt something new from you :)

The biggest concern I have with that approach is that we need to call native APIs to start a process, and that may break the native arguments parsing/passing work we have done in 7.2 (the PSNativeCommandArgumentPassing experimental feature), because that work depends on the .NET ProcessStartInfo.ArgumentList.

Also, there could be other problems due to the complexity introduced by that solution.

@SteveL-MSFT started another conversation with the Windows Store team. We will see how that goes.

[iSazonov]

I think the best solution is - we could get an public API we need with AppX module (if the module can do some operations with AppX it could tell whether an AppX console or GUI and so on). But WinRT was removed from .Net Runtime and now the module doesn't work in pwsh. So we need primarily new component to plug-in WinRT and than updated AppX module.
I think it's okay if users get AppX support as a plugin and not in the Engine.

[ghost]

🎉v7.3.0-preview.1 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

• Release Notes