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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Enable skip writing default vocabulary annotation #2202

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Enable skip writing default vocabulary annotation #2202

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

xuzhg
Copy link
Member

@xuzhg xuzhg commented Sep 28, 2021

This PR is the continue of the PR #2173

Description

Briefly describe the changes of this pull request.

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

  • Test cases added
  • Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

Additional work necessary

If documentation update is needed, please add "Docs Needed" label to the issue and provide details about the required document change in the issue.

@xuzhg xuzhg changed the title Enable ship writing default vocabulary annotation Enable skip writing default vocabulary annotation Sep 28, 2021
@mikepizzo
Copy link
Member

This version always omits writing the value in xml if it matches the default.

I'm concerned about this design for several reasons:

  1. It seems like it's a breaking change.
  2. Services should have a way to write default values if they want to.
  3. I'm concerned about the performance of repeated evaluation of the default value and comparing to the current value when writing.

mikepizzo
mikepizzo reviewed Oct 4, 2021
View reviewed changes
src/Microsoft.OData.Edm/Vocabularies/Annotations/IEdmTermExtensions.cs Outdated
/// </summary>
/// <param name="term">The given term.</param>
/// <returns>Null or the build Edm value expression.</returns>
public static IEdmExpression GetDefaultValueExpression(this IEdmTerm term)
Copy link
Member

@mikepizzo mikepizzo Oct 4, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

GetDefaultValueExpression

We seem to call this (potentially) frequently -- it would be nice if we could cache the default value for a term rather than recompute each time.

corranrogue9
corranrogue9 reviewed Oct 13, 2021
View reviewed changes
test/FunctionalTests/Microsoft.OData.Edm.Tests/Csdl/CsdlReaderTests.cs Outdated
"</edmx:DataServices>" +
"</edmx:Edmx>";
// Parse into CSDL
var model = CsdlReader.Parse(XElement.Parse(csdl).CreateReader());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The XmlReader returned by CreateReader implements IDisposable and should be wrapped in a using block

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This feedback also applies to other new tests

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated
Copy link

This PR has 713 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Extra Large
Size       : +694 -19
Percentile : 90.43%

Total files changed: 14

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +688 -15
.txt : +5 -3
.xml : +1 -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 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.

@xuzhg
Copy link
Member Author

xuzhg commented Oct 21, 2021

Merged at 0fc80da

@xuzhg xuzhg closed this Oct 21, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mikepizzo mikepizzo mikepizzo left review comments

@corranrogue9 corranrogue9 corranrogue9 approved these changes

@habbes habbes Awaiting requested review from habbes

@gathogojr gathogojr Awaiting requested review from gathogojr

@Sreejithpin Sreejithpin Awaiting requested review from Sreejithpin

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Extra Large
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@xuzhg @mikepizzo @corranrogue9