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

Jump to bottom

Replace DllImport with LibraryImport in SMA 2 #18543

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Nov 22, 2022
Merged

Replace DllImport with LibraryImport in SMA 2 #18543

merged 6 commits into from Nov 22, 2022

Conversation

iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov commented Nov 12, 2022 •
edited

PR Summary

  1. Since LibraryImport is designed for more efficient code, refactoring was done to exclude auxiliary allocations.
  2. The standard SpanMashaller is used for parameter marshalling, which excludes fixed, pinned and unsafe code.
  3. Of the three branches of code, two are dead code because GetDosDevice() is only called if PSDrive.DriveType == DriveType.Network
  4. New test is added for the case (network psdrive).
    To test:
  • Create new DOS device under Administrator
subst g: \\localhost\c$\tmp
  • Run pwsh under Administrator and Get-PSDrive
    image

PR Context

PR Checklist

@iSazonov iSazonov added the CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log label Nov 12, 2022
@iSazonov iSazonov force-pushed the libraryimport-sma2 branch 4 times, most recently from 71ee780 to f383b0a Compare November 13, 2022 08:26
@xtqqczze
Copy link
Contributor

Contributes to #18553.

SteveL-MSFT
SteveL-MSFT requested changes Nov 14, 2022
View changes
src/System.Management.Automation/engine/Interop/Windows/GetDosDevice.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/System.Management.Automation/engine/Interop/Windows/GetDosDevice.cs Outdated
// res[0] = '\\';
// res[^1] = '\\';
}
else if (res[^3] == ':')
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we change this to an assert? The comment is correct that this API is only ever used for network paths

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since this method is only used for network path and we don't want someone in the future accidentally using this for something else. I wonder if we should rename this to GetDosDeviceForNetworkPath().

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If this method is to be used more widely in the future, it will have to be renamed again. If renaming, then it is logical to comment out the dead code and replace it with throw. Thoughts?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since it seems unlikely this will be used in the future, I would suggest rename and throw.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done.
(File renamed to pinvoke name as in other PSs.)

src/System.Management.Automation/engine/Interop/Windows/GetDosDevice.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/System.Management.Automation/engine/Interop/Windows/GetDosDevice.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@msftbot msftbot bot added the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label Nov 14, 2022
@msftbot msftbot bot removed the Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept label Nov 15, 2022
@pull-request-quantifier
Copy link

This PR has 100 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Small
Size       : +66 -34
Percentile : 40%

Total files changed: 5

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +57 -30
.resx : +0 -3
.ps1 : +9 -1

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? 👍  👌  👎 (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@iSazonov iSazonov assigned iSazonov and unassigned PaulHigin Nov 22, 2022
@iSazonov iSazonov merged commit 8bc9fdb into PowerShell:master Nov 22, 2022
39 of 40 checks passed
@iSazonov iSazonov deleted the libraryimport-sma2 branch November 22, 2022 17:22
@msftbot
Copy link

msftbot bot commented Dec 20, 2022

🎉v7.4.0-preview.1 has been released which incorporates this pull request.🎉

Handy links:

CarloToso pushed a commit to CarloToso/PowerShell that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2023
@iSazonov @CarloToso
Replace DllImport with LibraryImport in SMA 2 (PowerShell#18543)
61e2b6e
gregsdennis pushed a commit to gregsdennis/PowerShell that referenced this pull request Mar 15, 2023
@iSazonov @gregsdennis
Replace DllImport with LibraryImport in SMA 2 (PowerShell#18543)
82fb6ad
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@xtqqczze xtqqczze xtqqczze left review comments

@SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT SteveL-MSFT approved these changes

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw

@anmenaga anmenaga

Assignees

@iSazonov iSazonov

Labels
CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log Small
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@iSazonov @xtqqczze @SteveL-MSFT @PaulHigin