xClusterPreferredOwner: Refactor unit test

[johlju]

Pull Request (PR) description

• Changes to xClusterPreferredOwner
  • Refactored the unit test for this resource to use stubs and increase coverage
    (issue xClusterPreferredOwner: Unit tests does not use the correct template and folder structure is wrong #76).
  • Changed the code to be more aligned with the style guideline.
  • Added examples (issue xClusterPreferredOwner: Missing an example for this resource #52)
    • 1-AddPreferredOwner.ps1
    • 2-RemovePreferredOwner.ps1
  • Added links to examples from README.md.

This Pull Request (PR) fixes the following issues:
Fixes #76
Fixes #52

Task list:

• Change details added to Unreleased section of CHANGELOG.md?
• Added/updated documentation, comment-based help and descriptions in .schema.mof files where appropriate?
• Examples appropriately updated?
• New/changed code adheres to Style Guidelines?
• Unit and (optional) Integration tests created/updated where possible?

---

This change is 

[msftclas]

@johlju,
Thanks for having already signed the Contribution License Agreement. Your agreement was validated by Microsoft. We will now review your pull request.
Thanks,
Microsoft Pull Request Bot

[johlju]

Closing this and reopen to kick off the AppVeyor test again.

[msftclas]

@johlju,
Thanks for having already signed the Contribution License Agreement. Your agreement was validated by Microsoft. We will now review your pull request.
Thanks,
Microsoft Pull Request Bot

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #98 into dev will increase coverage by 12%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@        Coverage Diff         @@
##           dev   #98    +/-   ##
==================================
+ Coverage   70%   83%   +12%     
==================================
  Files        6     6            
  Lines      292   315    +23     
==================================
+ Hits       207   263    +56     
+ Misses      85    52    -33

[johlju]

@bgelens This one is ready for review whenever you got time.

[bgelens]

Small things. Looking good!

---

Reviewed 7 of 8 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 4 unresolved discussions.

---

CHANGELOG.md, line 81 at r2 (raw file):

    should remove a disk (issue #90).
  - Changed the code to be more aligned with the style guideline.
  - Added examples (issue ¤46)

Unicode char?

---

DSCResources/MSFT_xClusterPreferredOwner/MSFT_xClusterPreferredOwner.psm1, line 64 at r2 (raw file):

                Write-Verbose -Message "Retrieving Owner information for Cluster Resource $resource"
                (((Get-ClusterResource -Cluster $ClusterName) | Where-Object -FilterScript {
                    $_.Name -like $resource

why like? are there wildcards allowed for $ClusterResources?

---

DSCResources/MSFT_xClusterPreferredOwner/MSFT_xClusterPreferredOwner.psm1, line 163 at r2 (raw file):

        } | Get-ClusterOwnerNode).OwnerNodes).Name | Sort-Object -Unique

        $newOwners = @(

Personally I would think a resource like this handles only one state. So ensure doesn't make sense to me. Instead I would think the resource would govern the owners specified in the configuration and would purge anything else instead of being additive. I'll mark this as satisfied as it is not blocking but just wanted to give my opinion :)

---

Examples/Resources/xClusterPreferredOwner/2-RemovePreferredOwner.ps1, line 31 at r2 (raw file):

        xClusterPreferredOwner 'RemoveOwnersForClusterGroup2'
        {
            Ensure = 'Absent'

This is what I was talking about... The resource is handling desired state a an imperative operation. So to fix a situation, first I have to remove owners, then push another config that would be consistent with my desired state... see what I mean?

---

Comments from Reviewable

[johlju]

Review status: 7 of 8 files reviewed at latest revision, 3 unresolved discussions.

---

CHANGELOG.md, line 81 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, bgelens (Ben Gelens) wrote…

Unicode char?

Done. Hit the wrong key ;)

---

DSCResources/MSFT_xClusterPreferredOwner/MSFT_xClusterPreferredOwner.psm1, line 64 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, bgelens (Ben Gelens) wrote…

why like? are there wildcards allowed for $ClusterResources?

Done. Submitted issue #101 (BREAKING CHANGE: xClusterPreferredOwner: Resource allows wildcards for ClusterGroup and ClusterResources)

---

DSCResources/MSFT_xClusterPreferredOwner/MSFT_xClusterPreferredOwner.psm1, line 163 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, bgelens (Ben Gelens) wrote…

Personally I would think a resource like this handles only one state. So ensure doesn't make sense to me. Instead I would think the resource would govern the owners specified in the configuration and would purge anything else instead of being additive. I'll mark this as satisfied as it is not blocking but just wanted to give my opinion :)

Done. Submitted issue #102 (xClusterPreferredOwner: Is the behavior of parameter Ensure correct?) to discuss this.

---

Examples/Resources/xClusterPreferredOwner/2-RemovePreferredOwner.ps1, line 31 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, bgelens (Ben Gelens) wrote…

This is what I was talking about... The resource is handling desired state a an imperative operation. So to fix a situation, first I have to remove owners, then push another config that would be consistent with my desired state... see what I mean?

Done. Submitted issue #102 (xClusterPreferredOwner: Is the behavior of parameter Ensure correct?) to discuss this.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[bgelens]

---

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved.

---

Comments from Reviewable