Summary of the new feature/enhancement
Initially for 7.0, we accepted a change to have [DBNull]::Value treated as $null. The expectation is that this would make it easier for DB users where their content may contain a DBNull and not require them to explicit check that as well as $null. However, this introduced other issues:
#11084
#10980
#10404
(note that we should probably treat NullString and AutomationNull equivalently)
So we had to revert that change before 7.0 GA (note: that change was reverted in rc.2 release branch which will be used for GA release, but kept in the master branch for now). We would still like to investigate whether such a change (or perhaps a different change) makes sense and consider all peripheral impact (so not just -eq, but -lt, etc... as well as how it works with null coalescing, etc...)
Summary of the new feature/enhancement
Initially for 7.0, we accepted a change to have [DBNull]::Value treated as $null. The expectation is that this would make it easier for DB users where their content may contain a DBNull and not require them to explicit check that as well as $null. However, this introduced other issues:
#11084
#10980
#10404
(note that we should probably treat NullString and AutomationNull equivalently)
So we had to revert that change before 7.0 GA (note: that change was reverted in rc.2 release branch which will be used for GA release, but kept in the master branch for now). We would still like to investigate whether such a change (or perhaps a different change) makes sense and consider all peripheral impact (so not just
-eq, but-lt, etc... as well as how it works with null coalescing, etc...)