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

Update dependencies for v7.4.1 #20871

Merged

Conversation

SeeminglyScience
Copy link
Collaborator

PR Summary

Updating dependencies for release v7.4.1

PR Context

PR Checklist

@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@

<ItemGroup>
<!-- This section is to force the version of non-direct dependencies -->
<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.Extensions.ObjectPool" Version="5.0.17" />
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

^ Transitive

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same question here, I wonder if this needs to be explicitly specified.

@@ -33,6 +34,7 @@
<PackageReference Include="System.ServiceModel.Primitives" Version="4.10.3" />
<PackageReference Include="System.ServiceModel.Security" Version="4.10.3" />
<PackageReference Include="System.Private.ServiceModel" Version="4.10.3" />
<PackageReference Include="System.Web.Services.Description" Version="4.10.3" />
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

^ Transitive

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ditto

<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers" Version="3.3.4" PrivateAssets="all" />
<!-- This section is to force the version of non-direct dependencies -->
<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.NETCore.Platforms" Version="1.1.2" />
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

^ Transitive

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ditto

<PackageReference Include="JsonSchema.Net" Version="5.2.6" />
<PackageReference Include="JsonSchema.Net" Version="5.2.7" />
<!-- This section is to force the version of non-direct dependencies -->
<PackageReference Include="Json.More.Net" Version="1.9.2" />
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

^ Transitive

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we didn't add this transitive package in the GA release, why do we need to add it now?

<PackageReference Include="JsonSchema.Net" Version="5.2.6" />
<PackageReference Include="JsonSchema.Net" Version="5.2.7" />
<!-- This section is to force the version of non-direct dependencies -->
<PackageReference Include="Json.More.Net" Version="1.9.2" />
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we didn't add this transitive package in the GA release, why do we need to add it now?

@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@

<ItemGroup>
<!-- This section is to force the version of non-direct dependencies -->
<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.Extensions.ObjectPool" Version="5.0.17" />
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same question here, I wonder if this needs to be explicitly specified.

@@ -33,6 +34,7 @@
<PackageReference Include="System.ServiceModel.Primitives" Version="4.10.3" />
<PackageReference Include="System.ServiceModel.Security" Version="4.10.3" />
<PackageReference Include="System.Private.ServiceModel" Version="4.10.3" />
<PackageReference Include="System.Web.Services.Description" Version="4.10.3" />
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ditto

<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers" Version="3.3.4" PrivateAssets="all" />
<!-- This section is to force the version of non-direct dependencies -->
<PackageReference Include="Microsoft.NETCore.Platforms" Version="1.1.2" />
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ditto

@@ -23,9 +23,12 @@
</ItemGroup>

<ItemGroup>
<PackageReference Include="xunit" Version="2.5.0" />
<PackageReference Include="xunit" Version="2.5.3" />
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moving to 2.5.3 causes xUnit test to fail. I didn't look closely and thus not sure why.

Comment on lines 29 to 30
<IncludeAssets>runtime; build; native; contentfiles; analyzers; buildtransitive</IncludeAssets>
<PrivateAssets>all</PrivateAssets>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this needed?

This PR has 10 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       : +5 -5
Percentile : 4%

Total files changed: 4

Change summary by file extension:
.csproj : +5 -5

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.

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.

LGTM!

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit ba7a7da into PowerShell:release/v7.4.1 Dec 8, 2023
38 of 39 checks passed
@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

The markdown link test failure is not related to the changes in this PR.

@iSazonov iSazonov added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label Dec 9, 2023
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.

None yet

3 participants