GeezerVison is showing github.com — Fix variable type inference precedence by MartinGC94 · Pull Request #18691 · PowerShell/PowerShell
Conversation
MartinGC94
commented
Nov 30, 2022
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
PR Summary
Fixes #18689
So instead of using the first variable assignment before the cursor to infer the type, it instead takes the last variable assignment before the cursor.
Removed a condition that could never be true because the loop before it always ensures that the parent property is null.
PR Context
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.
SeeminglyScience reacted with heart emoji
|
Doesn't this approach of reversing the order break this pattern of coding common to ps1 scripts?
$script = '[CmdletBinding()]
param (
# PS1 Script Parameter
[Parameter()]
[hashtable]
$ParameterName
)
function Verb-Noun {
[CmdletBinding()]
param (
# PS1 Function Parameter
[Parameter()]
[string]
$ParameterName
)
}
$ParameterName.'
TabExpansion2 -inputScript $script -cursorColumn $script.Length | select -expandproperty CompletionMatches
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
MartinGC94
commented
Nov 30, 2022
•
edited by unfurl-links
Bot
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
So, apparently VisitAssignmentStatement returns whatever is on the left: https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/src/System.Management.Automation/engine/parser/TypeInferenceVisitor.cs#L977
This caused some issues in my first test [string]$TestVar = "";[hashtable]$TestVar = @{};$TestVar where the typeinference saw it like the ast returned 3 types (string, hashtable x2) which was obviously not correct. If I fix that so AssignmentStatements return nothing then it's incorrect when used inside parentheses like this: $Var1 = ($Var2 = ls) because in that case the AssignmentStatement does return something.
Patrick Meinecke (@SeeminglyScience) What's your thoughts on this? How do I fix this properly?
  GitHub PowerShell for every system! Contribute to PowerShell/PowerShell development by creating an account on GitHub.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Doesn't this approach of reversing the order break this pattern of coding common to ps1 scripts?
Not this exact scenario because parameters are handled before variable assignments, so it will see the hashtable parameter before the other function parameter. But you are right that the approach isn't perfect. If you define a variable, and then a function like this:
[hashtable]$ParameterName=@{}
function Verb-Noun {
[CmdletBinding()]
param
(
[Parameter()]
[string]
$ParameterName
)
}
$ParameterName.<Tab>
then it will see the function parameter instead of the script variable. I will need to look into that.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
MartinGC94
changed the title
Fix variable type inference precedence
WIP: Fix variable type inference precedence
Nov 30, 2022
|
Mmmm tricky! I'm inclined to think that it should continue to infer the type on the RHS, but only of the closest assignment.
But then if you do
[string] $thing = 'something'
$thing = 10
$thing.<tab>
then you'll get int. And maybe that's fine but it sure doesn't feel good. The ideal thing would be if it looped through parents and looked through assignments to find the closest "declaration" but not recurse into the parent's children. That way you could avoid & { [string] $a = 10 }; $a = gci; $a.<tab> finding string.
Though even that's not necessarily perfect because then you'd miss declarations in a foreach loop. BUT you could argue that you should have the declaration outside of the loop, and it's fine to miss it in this case.
Sorry I got kind of ramble-y there, but does that make sense? Not in a "just go do that" kind of way, I'm still thinking over exactly what should be done, just kind of talking it out.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
…ix type inference for variables that have the same name as unrelated parameters
|
I found a simple solution, just add a special case for AssignmentStatements inside ParenExpressions. On a related note, do we have an official name for this: $Var1 = ($Var2 = ls). People on the internet call it "variable squeezing" but I haven't seen any official documents with this name.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
MartinGC94
changed the title
WIP: Fix variable type inference precedence
Fix variable type inference precedence
Dec 2, 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
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
I found a simple solution, just add a special case for AssignmentStatements inside ParenExpressions. On a related note, do we have an official name for this: $Var1 = ($Var2 = ls). People on the internet call it "variable squeezing" but I haven't seen any official documents with this name.
So Paren can force it in scenarios where it doesn't typically happen, but it's implicit with $var1 = $var2 = ls. I'm inclined to say the best solution would be to only look at the closest assignment prior to itself if that makes sense
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

This PR has 22 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 : +17 -5
Percentile : 8.8%
Total files changed: 2
Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +4 -5
.ps1 : +13 -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.
|
I've reverted the changes related to the assignmentstatementast type inference. I will (probably) look into fixing it in the future but it doesn't belong in this PR.
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
It 'Infers closest variable type' {
|
|
|
$res = [AstTypeInference]::InferTypeOf( { [string]$TestVar = "";[hashtable]$TestVar = @{};$TestVar }.Ast)
|
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.
should there be some sort of order checking here?
Sorry, something went wrong.
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.
No. There shouldn't even be multiple inferred types but because assignments are included when inferring the output from a scriptblock I need that Select -Last 1 statement.
I tried fixing the issue earlier but it's tricky because sometimes assignments actually do output something.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
|
return variableAstVariablePath.IsUnscopedVariable &&
|
|
|
parameterAst.Name.VariablePath.UnqualifiedPath.Equals(variableAstVariablePath.UnqualifiedPath, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
|
|
|
parameterAst.Name.VariablePath.UnqualifiedPath.Equals(variableAstVariablePath.UnqualifiedPath, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) &&
|
|
|
parameterAst.Parent.Parent.Extent.EndOffset > variableAst.Extent.StartOffset;
|
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.
MartinGC94 This change came from the commit c91e29f, which was reverted by 1289c4e. However, this change was left behind. Did you mean to revert this change as well?
Sorry, something went wrong.
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.
No, that was a fix for this: #18691 (comment) I was just lazy and put 2 changes in 1 commit which was clearly a bad idea 😄
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
daxian-dbw reacted with thumbs up emoji
ghost
removed
the
Waiting on Author
The PR was reviewed and requires changes or comments from the author before being accept
label
Jun 6, 2023
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.
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:
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Reviewers
+1 more reviewer
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Labels
CL-Engine
Indicates that a PR should be marked as an engine change in the Change Log
Extra Small
WG-Engine
core PowerShell engine, interpreter, and runtime
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.
|