GeezerVison is showing github.com — Make New-Item -Force overwrite on Junction by GigaScratch · Pull Request #18311 · PowerShell/PowerShell
Conversation
PR Summary
When performing New-Item <itemname> -Type Junction -Value <path> -Force, it will fail with "<path> cannot be removed because it is not empty.".
This has been resolved by moving the Child Item check from before force is checked, to the else condition of the force check.
PR Context
This PR aims to fix #17656.
PR Checklist
- PR has a meaningful title
- Use the present tense and imperative mood when describing your changes
- Summarized changes
- Make sure all
.h, .cpp, .cs, .ps1 and .psm1 files have the correct copyright header
- This PR is ready to merge and is not Work in Progress.
- If the PR is work in progress, please add the prefix
WIP: or [ WIP ] to the beginning of the title (the WIP bot will keep its status check at Pending while the prefix is present) and remove the prefix when the PR is ready.
- Breaking changes
- User-facing changes
- Testing - New and feature
- Tooling
- I have considered the user experience from a tooling perspective and don't believe tooling will be impacted.
- OR
- I have considered the user experience from a tooling perspective and opened an issue in the relevant tool repository. This may include:
- Impact on PowerShell Editor Services which is used in the PowerShell extension for VSCode
(which runs in a different PS Host).
- Impact on Completions (both in the console and in editors) - one of PowerShell's most powerful features.
- Impact on PSScriptAnalyzer (which provides linting & formatting in the editor extensions).
- Impact on EditorSyntax (which provides syntax highlighting with in VSCode, GitHub, and many other editors).
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
All CLA requirements met.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
Making this WIP as my build environment is unhappy so I'll be testing off the build artifact. 😅
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Olivia (@GigaScratch) Please add a test.
Ilya (@iSazonov) Can you please provide guideance as to where tests for New-Item/ FileSystemProvidershould go? I tried searching for New-Item and Junction and System.Mangement.Automation through a few contexts but they're broadly used in standard PS tests so much that I can't actually find the test area dedicated to them.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
You could look
Describe "Hard link and symbolic link tests" -Tags "CI", "RequireAdminOnWindows"
in FileSystem.Tests.ps1
|
GigaScratch reacted with heart emoji
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Please add a test.
I added a simple overwrite test, but ideally I would like a way to verify that the object created is actually new and to throw an error if it is not.
In a FAT32 or EXFAT FS I would just compare the creation date by epoch, but afaik Windows doesn't store the milliseconds in item creation 😐. Is there a way you would recommend to compare the first and second junction to verify the second is actually new?
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
You could use another target in second New-Item and check that target is changed after first command.
|
GigaScratch reacted with heart emoji
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
1 similar comment
|
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
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
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

This PR has 38 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 : +23 -15
Percentile : 15.2%
Total files changed: 2
Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +13 -15
.ps1 : +10 -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.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Dongbo Wang (daxian-dbw)
left a comment
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Made a quick fix and rebased the branch.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
🎉v7.4.0-preview.4 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:
Handy links:
|
tolgabalci reacted with heart emoji
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Milestone
No milestone
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
|