Skip to content

Make generated implicit remoting modules backwards compatible with PowerShell 5#17227

Merged
PaulHigin merged 2 commits intoPowerShell:masterfrom
Tadas:fix_export_pssession_for_legacy
Aug 8, 2022
Merged

Make generated implicit remoting modules backwards compatible with PowerShell 5#17227
PaulHigin merged 2 commits intoPowerShell:masterfrom
Tadas:fix_export_pssession_for_legacy

Conversation

@Tadas
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Tadas Tadas commented Apr 29, 2022

PR Summary

Make generated implicit remoting modules backwards compatible with PowerShell 5 (Fix #17132)

PR Context

Fixing this issue would allow for a better user experience in environments that haven't been fully migrated to a modern version of PowerShell yet.

PR Checklist

@Tadas Tadas requested a review from PaulHigin as a code owner April 29, 2022 10:52
@ghost ghost assigned PaulHigin Apr 29, 2022
@PaulHigin PaulHigin requested a review from daxian-dbw May 5, 2022 16:37
PaulHigin
PaulHigin approved these changes May 5, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@PaulHigin PaulHigin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change replaces a string to be executed containing a hardcoded assembly name, with a different string expression that finds the correct type, all to access the script generator version property. This looks like a good change to me. But I would like @daxian-dbw to also take a look.

daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw reviewed May 9, 2022
View reviewed changes
Comment thread src/Microsoft.PowerShell.Commands.Utility/commands/utility/ImplicitRemotingCommands.cs Outdated
@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label May 17, 2022
@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented May 17, 2022

This pull request has been automatically marked as Review Needed because it has been there has not been any activity for 7 days.
Maintainer, please provide feedback and/or mark it as Waiting on Author

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept and removed Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed labels May 24, 2022
@ghost ghost added the Stale label Jun 8, 2022
@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Jun 8, 2022

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has been marked as requiring author feedback but has not had any activity for 15 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 10 days of this comment.

@ghost ghost removed the Stale label Jun 8, 2022
@PaulHigin PaulHigin added the WG-Security security related areas such as JEA label Jun 8, 2022
@ghost ghost added the Stale label Jun 23, 2022
@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Jun 23, 2022

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has been marked as requiring author feedback but has not had any activity for 15 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 10 days of this comment.

@ghost ghost removed Waiting on Author The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept Stale labels Jun 28, 2022
@ghost ghost added the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Jul 6, 2022
@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Jul 6, 2022

This pull request has been automatically marked as Review Needed because it has been there has not been any activity for 7 days.
Maintainer, please provide feedback and/or mark it as Waiting on Author

@Tadas
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Tadas commented Aug 3, 2022

Sorry @daxian-dbw, is there anything else for me to do here?

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

daxian-dbw commented Aug 3, 2022

@Tadas As said in my last comment #17227 (comment), I prefer [Microsoft.PowerShell.Commands.ExportPSSessionCommand, Microsoft.PowerShell.Commands.Utility] as in

Type type = typeof(ExportPSSessionCommand);
string asmName = type.Assembly.GetName().Name;
string versionOfScriptGenerator = $"[{type.FullName}, {asmName}]::VersionOfScriptGenerator";

But this is not a blocking comment, so it's up to @PaulHigin to decide if merging this PR as is.

@ghost ghost removed the Review - Needed The PR is being reviewed label Aug 3, 2022
@PaulHigin
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PaulHigin commented Aug 3, 2022

@daxian-dbw Can you sign off please?

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

daxian-dbw commented Aug 3, 2022

@PaulHigin I have a concern as described in #17227 (comment) and prefer to be explicit about the expected assembly name. But it's not a blocking comment.

@PaulHigin
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PaulHigin commented Aug 3, 2022

@daxian-dbw It is a blocking comment if you don't sign off :). I won't merge until I get two sign offs. If you feel you cannot sign off then please work with the author to remedy.

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

daxian-dbw commented Aug 3, 2022

Alright :)
@Tadas please see #17227 (comment) for my suggested changes and see if you are fine with that.

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

pull-request-quantifier-deprecated Bot commented Aug 8, 2022

This PR has 4 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 -1
Percentile : 1.6%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +3 -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? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@Tadas
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Tadas commented Aug 8, 2022

Yep the suggested changes look good 👍

daxian-dbw
daxian-dbw approved these changes Aug 8, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Thanks @Tadas!

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added the CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log label Aug 8, 2022
@PaulHigin PaulHigin merged commit 53a212e into PowerShell:master Aug 8, 2022
@PaulHigin
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PaulHigin commented Aug 8, 2022

@Tadas Thank you for your contribution!

@ghost
Copy link
Copy Markdown

ghost commented Aug 12, 2022

🎉v7.3.0-preview.7 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2022
Closed
5 tasks
@TravisEz13 TravisEz13 mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2022
Merged
22 tasks
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

+1 more reviewer

@PaulHigin PaulHigin PaulHigin approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

@PaulHigin PaulHigin

Labels

CL-General Indicates that a PR should be marked as a general cmdlet change in the Change Log Extra Small WG-Security security related areas such as JEA

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Export-PSSession generated module does not load in PowerShell 5.1 even though ScriptGenerator version is the same

3 participants

@Tadas @daxian-dbw @PaulHigin