Skip to content
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add type inference support for generic methods with type parameters #16951

Merged

Conversation

MartinGC94
Copy link
Contributor

PR Summary

Fixes #16934
Now you can tab complete based on the expected output from a method that is invoked with type parameters such as [array]::Empty[int]().<Tab>

PR Context

PR Checklist

@MartinGC94
Copy link
Contributor Author

Apparently the changes that got merged today made by code incompatible. I guess I should have tested it on the latest master before making this PR.

Copy link
Collaborator

@SeeminglyScience SeeminglyScience left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

MartinGC94 and others added 2 commits March 6, 2022 17:59
Co-authored-by: Ilya <darpa@yandex.ru>
@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Mar 18, 2022
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 18, 2022

This pull request has been automatically marked as Review Needed because it has been there has not been any activity for 7 days.
Maintainer, please provide feedback and/or mark it as Waiting on Author

@PowerShell PowerShell deleted a comment from Marcus79873498 Apr 29, 2022
@PowerShell PowerShell deleted a comment from Marcus79873498 Apr 29, 2022
@PowerShell PowerShell deleted a comment from Marcus79873498 Apr 29, 2022
@PowerShell PowerShell deleted a comment from Marcus79873498 Apr 29, 2022
Copy link
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for the long delay in review. Looks good to me overall with 2 comments.

@ghost ghost added Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept and removed Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed labels May 23, 2022
@ghost ghost removed the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label May 23, 2022
@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

@MartinGC94 I refactored your change a little bit to avoid calling MakeGenericMethod when there is any unresolvable type argument. Also, I changed break to continue in the catch all block, let me know if you have any concerns about those changes.

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

/rebase

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 25, 2022

Started rebase: https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/actions/runs/2387740157

GitHub
PowerShell for every system! Contribute to PowerShell/PowerShell development by creating an account on GitHub.

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

@MartinGC94 The PR needs to be rebased to get rid of a test failure, but we are not able to force push to your branch. Can you please rebase the typeInferenceForGenericMethods branch?

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 46 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       : +38 -8
Percentile : 18.4%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +34 -8
.ps1 : +4 -0

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 daxian-dbw added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label May 27, 2022
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit e7f705a into PowerShell:master May 27, 2022
@MartinGC94 MartinGC94 deleted the TypeInferenceForGenericMethods branch June 5, 2022 08:29
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 22, 2022

🎉v7.3.0-preview.5 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log Extra Small
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Tab completion type inference does not account for generic method invocation with explicit type parameters
7 participants