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.

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

Fixes #2754, enable key in parenthesis after composable function with parameters #2757

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: release-7.x
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

xuzhg
Copy link
Member

@xuzhg xuzhg commented Oct 3, 2023

… parameters

Issues

This pull request fixes #2754.

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 marked this pull request as ready for review October 3, 2023 22:30
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 102 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       : +91 -11
Percentile : 40.4%

Total files changed: 6

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +91 -11

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.


Stack<ExpressionTokenKind> stack = new Stack<ExpressionTokenKind>();
stack.Push(ExpressionTokenKind.OpenParen);
ExpressionLexer lexer = new ExpressionLexer(parenthesisExpression, true /*moveToFirstToken*/, false /*useSemicolonDelimiter*/, true /*parsingFunctionParameters*/);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Named parameters would be neater...

Stack<ExpressionTokenKind> stack = new Stack<ExpressionTokenKind>();
stack.Push(ExpressionTokenKind.OpenParen);
ExpressionLexer lexer = new ExpressionLexer(parenthesisExpression, true /*moveToFirstToken*/, false /*useSemicolonDelimiter*/, true /*parsingFunctionParameters*/);
bool paramertersFound = false;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit:

Suggested change
bool paramertersFound = false;
bool parametersFound = false;

@@ -1072,7 +1077,14 @@ private bool TryCreateSegmentForOperationImport(string identifier, string parent

this.parsedSegments.Add(segment);

this.TryBindKeySegmentIfNoResolvedParametersAndParenthesisValueExists(parenthesisExpression, returnType, resolvedParameters, segment);
// Be noted, it's back-compatibile since the function can be called without parameters but with keys
// for example: "~/GetCoolPeople(1)", where '1' is the key, not the parameters.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We know that "1" is a key and not a parameter because it's not named, no?

[InlineData("degree=1)('fawn'", "degree=1", "'fawn'")]
public void SplitOperationParametersAndParenthesisKey_WorksForInputExpression(string expression, string parameters, string keys)
{
FunctionParameterParser.SplitOperationParametersAndParenthesisKey(expression, out string acutalParams, out string actualKeys);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit:

Suggested change
FunctionParameterParser.SplitOperationParametersAndParenthesisKey(expression, out string acutalParams, out string actualKeys);
FunctionParameterParser.SplitOperationParametersAndParenthesisKey(expression, out string actualParams, out string actualKeys);

/// <summary>
/// Splits the parenthesis expression into two parts (if apply)
/// One is the function parameter, the other is key in parenthesis (if exists)
/// Be noted, the input expression doesn't contain the beginning "(" and the ending ")"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe this should be a <remark>...

@@ -21,6 +21,19 @@ namespace Microsoft.OData.Tests.UriParser.Parsers
/// </summary>
public class FunctionParameterParserTests
{
[Theory]
[InlineData("1", "1", null)]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this a scenario where the function is being called with one parameter without specifying the name?

/// <param name="parenthesisKey">the output for key in parenthesis part</param>
internal static void SplitOperationParametersAndParenthesisKey(string parenthesisExpression, out string parameters, out string parenthesisKey)
{
// Be noted, the input expression doesn't contain the first '(' and last ')'.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we have a sanity check to confirm that the input expression does not containe the beginning "(" and the ending ")"?

[InlineData(")(1", "", "1")]
[InlineData("person=People(1)", "person=People(1)", null)]
[InlineData("person=People(1))('bca(aa('", "person=People(1)", "'bca(aa('")]
[InlineData("degree=1)('fawn'", "degree=1", "'fawn'")]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you add the "" scenario? No parameters and no keys, i.e. fn()

Assert.Equal(parameters, acutalParams);
Assert.Equal(keys, actualKeys);
}

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Add a test for the scenario where the ODataException(ODataErrorStrings.ExpressionLexer_SyntaxError(currentToken.Position, parenthesisExpression)); is thrown

@@ -1072,7 +1077,14 @@ private bool TryCreateSegmentForOperationImport(string identifier, string parent

this.parsedSegments.Add(segment);

this.TryBindKeySegmentIfNoResolvedParametersAndParenthesisValueExists(parenthesisExpression, returnType, resolvedParameters, segment);
// Be noted, it's back-compatibile since the function can be called without parameters but with keys
// for example: "~/GetCoolPeople(1)", where '1' is the key, not the parameters.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How do we know (1) represents the key and not the parameters?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ODataException for key-parens segment following OperationSegment with parameters
2 participants