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

Small cleanup Invoke-RestMethod #19490

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
May 22, 2023

Conversation

CarloToso
Copy link
Contributor

@CarloToso CarloToso commented Apr 11, 2023

PR Summary

Small cleanup Invoke-RestMethod

PR Context

PR Checklist

@ghost ghost assigned PaulHigin Apr 11, 2023
// NOTE: Tests use this verbose output to verify the encoding.
WriteVerbose(string.Create(System.Globalization.CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, $"Content encoding: {encodingVerboseName}"));
WriteVerbose(string.Create(System.Globalization.CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, $"Content encoding: {encoding.HeaderName}"));
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

HeaderName can throw.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@CarloToso CarloToso Apr 12, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think it will throw
Test:

[System.Text.Encoding]::GetEncodings().GetEncoding().Count -eq `
([System.Text.Encoding]::GetEncodings().GetEncoding() | % {$_.EncodingName}).Count -eq `
([System.Text.Encoding]::GetEncodings().GetEncoding() | % {$_.HeaderName}).Count -eq 116 #tested on windows

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is throw in implementation.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@CarloToso CarloToso Apr 14, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand - you point NotSupportedException in the implementation but says the try-catch is not correct.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll try to explain better.

  1. We obtain the encoding from StreamHelper.DecodeStream() --> TryGetEncoding() --> this will always generate a valid encoding, if there is an unrecognized encoding it will be replaced by ContentHelper.GetDefaultEncoding() --> UTF8

  2. Every valid encoding (all 116 of them) has both encoding.EncodingName and encoding.HeaderName so we don't need to check string.IsNullOrEmpty(encoding.HeaderName) and we can simply choose the name we like best

  3. If an invalid encoding got to the encodingVerboseName try-catch:

                    string encodingVerboseName;
                    try
                    {
                        encodingVerboseName = string.IsNullOrEmpty(encoding.HeaderName) ? encoding.EncodingName : encoding.HeaderName;
                    }
                    catch (NotSupportedException)
                    {
                        encodingVerboseName = encoding.EncodingName;
                    }

both the names throw in the same condition (EncodingTable.GetCodePageDataItem(_codePage) is null) so both would throw:
Cases:

string.IsNullOrEmpty(encoding.HeaderName) --> encodingVerboseName = encoding.EncodingName --> throw --> catch --> encodingVerboseName = encoding.EncodingName --> throw

!string.IsNullOrEmpty(encoding.HeaderName) --> encodingVerboseName = encoding.HeaderName --> throw --> catch --> encodingVerboseName = encoding.EncodingName --> throw

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

3 is good catch and we could use String.Empty.
I cannot agree with 1. and 2. points since it is not safe as the previous code can be changed and also there is dynamic code pages registration.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I updated the code following your suggestions

@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Apr 21, 2023
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 21, 2023

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 WG-Cmdlets general cmdlet issues Needs-Triage The issue is new and needs to be triaged by a work group. labels May 1, 2023
@StevenBucher98 StevenBucher98 added the PowerShell-Docs not needed The PR was reviewed and doesn't appear to require a PowerShell Docs update label May 8, 2023
@iSazonov iSazonov closed this May 10, 2023
@iSazonov iSazonov reopened this May 10, 2023
@ghost ghost removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label May 10, 2023
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 20 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       : +9 -11
Percentile : 8%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +9 -11

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 May 18, 2023
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 18, 2023

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

@iSazonov iSazonov merged commit 371abc5 into PowerShell:master May 22, 2023
@ghost ghost removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label May 22, 2023
@CarloToso CarloToso deleted the cleanup-invokerestmethod branch May 22, 2023 17:52
@adityapatwardhan adityapatwardhan added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label Jun 28, 2023
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 29, 2023

🎉v7.4.0-preview.4 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 Needs-Triage The issue is new and needs to be triaged by a work group. PowerShell-Docs not needed The PR was reviewed and doesn't appear to require a PowerShell Docs update WG-Cmdlets general cmdlet issues
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants