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

Refactor UTF-7 encoding detection #18384

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor

@xtqqczze xtqqczze commented Oct 25, 2022

Motivation

Remove the unnecessary string comparison in EncodingConversion.Convert.

if (string.Equals(encoding, Utf7, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))

Context

cc: @JamesWTruher

@xtqqczze xtqqczze marked this pull request as ready for review October 26, 2022 00:19
@xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor Author

Perhaps @JamesWTruher could review?

@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Nov 5, 2022
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 5, 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

@xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor Author

xtqqczze commented Nov 5, 2022

PowerShell-CI-macos failures seem unrelated:

dotnet build failed with error: Expected binary was not created:
     | bin/Debug/net7.0/publish/Microsoft.PowerShell.NamedPipeConnection.dll

Comment on lines +7664 to +7674
void WarnIfUtf7Encoding(Encoding value)
{
const int CodePageUtf7 = 65000;

// Use the recommended pattern to check for UTF-7.
// https://docs.microsoft.com/dotnet/core/compatibility/core-libraries/5.0/utf-7-code-paths-obsolete
if (value is { CodePage: CodePageUtf7 })
{
_provider.WriteWarning(PathUtilsStrings.Utf7EncodingObsolete);
}
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This seems overkill to me. I prefer the original code.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@xtqqczze Can you please respond to this comment? Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor Author

@xtqqczze xtqqczze Nov 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I prefer the symbolic constant because it explains the meaning at a glance without having to read the comment for an explanation.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@iSazonov, @SteveL-MSFT Thoughts?

Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov Nov 22, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess @daxian-dbw don't like the modern syntax in the place but ok with the new name WarnIfUtf7Encoding. If so I agree with him.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I should be clearer on my comment.
It's not the syntax value is { CodePage: CodePageUtf7 }, but that you have a local method in a setter. Please avoid having a local method in a setter unless it's really needed.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@xtqqczze Please revert the change.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@xtqqczze - please respond to this feedback

@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 Nov 7, 2022
@ghost ghost removed the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label Nov 14, 2022
@xtqqczze xtqqczze closed this Nov 14, 2022
@xtqqczze xtqqczze reopened this Nov 14, 2022
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 31 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       : +17 -14
Percentile : 12.4%

Total files changed: 9

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +17 -14

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 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 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.

@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Nov 30, 2022
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 30, 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

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log Needs-Triage The issue is new and needs to be triaged by a work group. labels May 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log Extra Small Needs-Triage The issue is new and needs to be triaged by a work group. Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants