X Tutup
Skip to content

Replace FindFirstFileExW with FindFirstFileW#16840

Merged
daxian-dbw merged 4 commits intoPowerShell:masterfrom
iSazonov:replace-findfirstfileexw
Feb 5, 2022
Merged

Replace FindFirstFileExW with FindFirstFileW#16840
daxian-dbw merged 4 commits intoPowerShell:masterfrom
iSazonov:replace-findfirstfileexw

Conversation

@iSazonov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@iSazonov iSazonov commented Feb 4, 2022 •
edited
Loading

PR Summary

Fix #16804

Test would be very slow so I added protection comment in the code since no functional changes was done.

PR Context

PR Checklist

@iSazonov iSazonov added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label Feb 4, 2022
@iSazonov iSazonov requested a review from SteveL-MSFT February 4, 2022 05:19
@iSazonov iSazonov requested a review from anmenaga as a code owner February 4, 2022 05:19
@ghost ghost assigned anmenaga Feb 4, 2022
daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw reviewed Feb 4, 2022
View reviewed changes
src/System.Management.Automation/namespaces/FileSystemProvider.cs
fullPath = PathUtils.EnsureExtendedPrefix(fullPath);
}

using (SafeFindHandle handle = FindFirstFileEx(fullPath, FINDEX_INFO_LEVELS.FindExInfoBasic, ref data, FINDEX_SEARCH_OPS.FindExSearchNameMatch, IntPtr.Zero, 0))
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw Feb 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can the structs FINDEX_INFO_LEVELS and FINDEX_SEARCH_OPS be removed now?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@iSazonov iSazonov Feb 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

They have been used for so long that one wonders if they will be needed again. :-)
They don't increase the size of the binaries, so I decided to leave them in until we were sure that .Net did what we needed.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw Feb 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's better to remove all if they are not in use anymore. If for some reason we need to revert this change, all will be reverted back anyways.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@iSazonov iSazonov Feb 5, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am exploring now how we can make our providers better in particular File Provider and may need it again. I don't mind removing it for now though.

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link
Copy Markdown

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated bot commented Feb 5, 2022

This PR has 15 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       : +3 -12
Percentile : 6%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +3 -12

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 detetcted.
  • 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.

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit a5d41c2 into PowerShell:master Feb 5, 2022
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw assigned daxian-dbw and unassigned anmenaga Feb 5, 2022
@danmoseley danmoseley mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2022
Open
@iSazonov iSazonov deleted the replace-findfirstfileexw branch February 5, 2022 17:40
@sba923
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

sba923 commented Feb 6, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Great job!

Shall I correctly infer that this will surface in the next 7.2.x and 7.3.0-preview.x?

What about the OS bug? Will you guys report it "there"?

@iSazonov
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

iSazonov commented Feb 6, 2022

@sba923 You can subscribe to .Net issue dotnet/runtime#64789 to track news about the API issue.

The fix will be in next PowerShell 7.3 Preview2. As for backport to LTS version, I guess MSFT team will weight. Personally I don't see needs to backport the fix since it is rare scenario.

Fs00 referenced this pull request in slapperwan/gh4a Feb 12, 2022
@maniac103
Add support for 'cross referenced' issue event.
f8168cb 
Switch issue/PR fragments to use the timeline API in order to get that
event.
@Fs00 Fs00 mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2022
Merged
@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Feb 24, 2022

🎉v7.3.0-preview.2 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2022
Closed
5 tasks
@TravisEz13
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

TravisEz13 commented Mar 2, 2022

@PowerShell/powershell-maintainers
We only take security fixes and regression to LTS. This is appropriate for 7.3. Rejecting back-port.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw daxian-dbw approved these changes

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

@anmenaga anmenaga Awaiting requested review from anmenaga

Assignees

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw

Labels

CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log Extra Small

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Remove-Item fails on FAT32 drive when encountering some Unicode characters

6 participants

@iSazonov @sba923 @TravisEz13 @daxian-dbw @SteveL-MSFT @anmenaga
X Tutup