Bot refactoring for easier use and updating

[StevenBucher98]

PR Summary

Trying to update the github resource management bot so we can see the behaviors more clearly and segmented out, WIP as I mainly want the bot itself to check for syntax issues

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]

@StevenBucher98 You need to resolve the conflicts.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 884 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Large
Size       : +465 -419
Percentile : 96.13%

Total files changed: 5

Change summary by file extension:
.yml : +465 -419

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.

[microsoft-github-policy-service]

📣 Hey @StevenBucher98, how did we do? We would love to hear your feedback with the link below! 🗣️

🔗 aka.ms/PSRepoFeedback

[kilasuit]

I started to review this but due to other things GitHub lost my review, which actually may be for the best as was much longer than this one will be & let us at least get this in and then can be discussed about further adaptions & improvements.

In short @StevenBucher98 I think this PR was good & needed, especially the splitting up of things into smaller files, though perhaps some language in messages and the time frames for closures could be improved to make the experience seem friendlier & account for both the issue/discussion/PR author/collaborators/maintainers having time off like weekends, non-working days, illness & holidays being or collaborators/maintainers unsure as to where to initially triage to as the team doesn't (I don't think) currently or intend to provide a 24x7x365 support experience, but should detail via a response that links to a support policy so that when new issues are raised people can read and get an instant understanding of what should come next & if needs what escalation processes are in place, both via being community/team maintainers/collaborators.

I think we pretty much have almost all of this in place already, but I think but it may just need to connect some missing dots and add an auto response on issue/PR/discussion creation that can link to either a doc or blog post detailing how the team expects to be deal with interactions going forward to better formalise things and make expectations clear, this can then be used as a starting blueprint for interaction across all repos/services of the PowerShell team and I hope should make experiences better for all involved going forward & probs better to see if we can try find some time to discuss more in the new year.