ConvertFrom-Json: Add -DateKind parameter

[jborean93]

PR Summary

Adds the -DateKind parameter to the ConvertFrom-Json that allows the caller to control how DateTime strings are converted into an object. The default behaviour is to create a DateTime value with the Kind being Unspecified if no TZ is set, Utc if the TZ Z is set, Local (after conversion) if an explicit TZ is set. This adds a Utc, Local to explicitly set the Kind as desired as well as a Offset and String value to create a DateTimeOffset or keep as a string.

PR Context

Provides the user the ability to create a DateTimeOffset value so that the underlying time zone information is preserved. Also gives the user the ability to keep it as a string or a specific DateTime with the Local or Utc kind.

Fixes: #13598

Docs PR for this change: MicrosoftDocs/PowerShell-Docs#10737

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: ConvertFrom-Json: Add -DateKind parameter MicrosoftDocs/PowerShell-Docs#10737
• 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:

[iSazonov]

@mklement0 Could please review and confirm this work as you expect?

[iSazonov]

LGTM.

[mklement0]

Shouldn't this be JsonDateKind.Default?

[jborean93]

Yes it should be, sorry was playing around with comparing the defaults and never fixed this up when finalizing on the values.

Thanks for picking it up.

[mklement0]

Thanks, @iSazonov - I have one small question (see above), but otherwise it looks great. Thank you for tackling this, @jborean93.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 183 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       : +182 -1
Percentile : 56.6%

Total files changed: 4

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +41 -1
.ps1 : +141 -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.

[SteveL-MSFT]

LGTM, great addition

[microsoft-github-policy-service]

📣 Hey @jborean93, how did we do? We would love to hear your feedback with the link below! 🗣️

🔗 https://aka.ms/PSRepoFeedback

Microsoft Forms

[iSazonov]

@jborean93 Thanks for your contribution!

[jborean93]

Thanks for the review everyone!