allow configuring alternate key vocabulary and address performance co…

[corranrogue9]

…ncerns

Issues

This pull request fixes #2490.

Description

Updated the AlternateKeyODataUriResolver to be able to configure which alternate key vocabularies are used and removed the use of a lambda which presented a memory leak concern.

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.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 119 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Medium
Size       : +106 -13
Percentile : 43.8%

Total files changed: 13

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +89 -13
.txt : +2 -0
.bsl : +15 -0

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.

[mikepizzo]

var

We have traditionally avoided use of "var" in production code (we do use it in test code).

[mikepizzo]

any = true;

should we wait to set this until we have a value on line 3539 (i.e., versus the collectionexpression being empty)?

It looks like both the existing and new code could return either null or an empty dictionary, so the calling code presumably has to be prepared for either. Is there an advantage to returning one over the other?

[mikepizzo]

🕐