Replace FindFirstFileExW with FindFirstFileW

[iSazonov]

PR Summary

Fix #16804

Test would be very slow so I added protection comment in the code since no functional changes was done.

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
  • 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 on PowerShell Editor Services which is used in the PowerShell 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 on PSScriptAnalyzer (which provides linting & formatting in the editor extensions).
      • Issue filed:
    • Impact on EditorSyntax (which provides syntax highlighting with in VSCode, GitHub, and many other editors).
      • Issue filed:

[daxian-dbw]

Can the structs FINDEX_INFO_LEVELS and FINDEX_SEARCH_OPS be removed now?

[iSazonov]

They have been used for so long that one wonders if they will be needed again. :-)
They don't increase the size of the binaries, so I decided to leave them in until we were sure that .Net did what we needed.

[daxian-dbw]

It's better to remove all if they are not in use anymore. If for some reason we need to revert this change, all will be reverted back anyways.

[iSazonov]

I am exploring now how we can make our providers better in particular File Provider and may need it again. I don't mind removing it for now though.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 15 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       : +3 -12
Percentile : 6%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +3 -12

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.

[sba923]

Great job!

Shall I correctly infer that this will surface in the next 7.2.x and 7.3.0-preview.x?

What about the OS bug? Will you guys report it "there"?

[iSazonov]

@sba923 You can subscribe to .Net issue dotnet/runtime#64789 to track news about the API issue.

The fix will be in next PowerShell 7.3 Preview2. As for backport to LTS version, I guess MSFT team will weight. Personally I don't see needs to backport the fix since it is rare scenario.

[ghost]

🎉v7.3.0-preview.2 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

• Release Notes

[TravisEz13]

@PowerShell/powershell-maintainers
We only take security fixes and regression to LTS. This is appropriate for 7.3. Rejecting back-port.