WIP: Provide a way to convert the output of native executables to objects

[JamesWTruher]

PR Summary

This PR is a partial implementation of PowerShell/PowerShell-RFC#341

It enables automatically calling a function or script after a native application if that function has the name of -json.

PR Context

As outlined in the RFC, interacting with the output of native executables could be improved by converting the text output to objects which can then take advantage of the rest of the PowerShell infrastructure. This PR implements an approach which automatically adding a function/script named in a specific way immediately following a command.

It is somewhat tiresome to have to provide an entire pipeline to do this:

uname -a | jc --uname | convertfrom-json

It would be more convenient to just be able to type:

uname

and have a resultant object returned into the PowerShell environment.
By implementing a simple function, it would be possible to support this.

PS> function uname-json {
 if ($args -contains "-a" ) {
     $input | jc --uname | ConvertFrom-Json
 }
 else {
     $input
 }
}
PS> uname -a

machine        : x86_64
kernel_name    : Darwin
node_name      : JamesiMac20.local
kernel_release : 22.3.0
kernel_version : Darwin Kernel Version 22.3.0: Mon Jan 30 20:42:11 PST 2023; root:xnu-8792.81.3~2/RELEASE_X86_64

PS> uname
Darwin

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): PSNativeJsonAdapter
• 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:

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 178 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Medium
Size       : +175 -3
Percentile : 55.6%

Total files changed: 14

Change summary by file extension:
.json : +2 -0
.cs : +60 -3
.ps1 : +97 -0
.sh : +7 -0
.bat : +9 -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 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]

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

[JamesWTruher]

while this was an interesting approach, it's been decided that a feedback/suggestion approach would be a better experience.