GeezerVison

All CLA requirements met.

I'm curious if this is even the right direction. Doesn't Stop-Service -Force do this already? Shouldn't Set-Service only support a a very basic stop? The -Status on Set-Service is redundant to stop-service which should be the de facto way to stop services.

We have a similar question in #5471

I think it is necessary to remove the ServicesDependedOn check for it will block the normal function. and for parameter "Force", we can discuss it in other thread, if the parameter may be not acceptable.

Steve Lee (@SteveL-MSFT) Could you please review the PR with #5471 on PowerShell committee?

Yes, Set-Service -Status duplicates Start-Service / Resume-Service / Stop-Service / Suspend-Service functionality, but:

• it is a one-stop solution with more of a desired-state feel.
• it offers functionality that Start-Service doesn't have: if the target service's startup mode is currently Disabled, Start-Service invariably fails. By contrast, you can use Set-Service -StartupType Manual -State Running in such a case, for instance.

On the flip side, it currently doesn't support -Force in order to stop a service that have dependents - which I think should be fixed too.

As for the issue at hand:

Preventing a service from stopping because it depends on other services - as opposed to having other services depend on it (having dependents) - is an arbitrary and nonsensical restriction.

I presume it was introduced based on a misconception and should therefore be removed, which will make -Status Stopped work as expected, as long as the target service doesn't have dependents.

Ilya (@iSazonov): How is #5471 related to this?

Michael Klement (@mklement0) Thanks for useful comments!

How is #5471 Start-Process: add parameter 'ExitTimeout' related to this?

Design review needed.

Michael Klement (@mklement0)

it is a one-stop solution with more of a desired-state feel.

Yea, but stopping a service is NOT setting a service. We have specific verbs for that kind of action. if there is a current bug in how it operates, that should be fixed, but adding -force for set- to only affect the stop is ridiculous. We have the stop verb, use it for advanced stop functionality. If you can get away with basic stop on set, so be it, that's what stop is for. If I could go back in time I would say the set verb should not have had this functionality to begin with. if it did, then the stop verb should not have been included.

On your second point about start-service, I will say that set is also not start and including it originally is silly, IMO. The correction there is to add a -force to start if it is not already there that enables the service if it is not disabled and starts any services it depends on.

I'm just trying to keep things simple here and it seems like this PR is going in the wrong direction from simple. There is nothing wrong with doing something like set-service @params -PassThru | stop-service or set-service @params -PassThru | start-service. That keeps to the do one thing philosophy. increasing complexity in a command to do another thing when there is another command that does that one thing is an odd design choice. (setting aside any perceived convenience in doing so).

I don't why it was decided to provide duplicate functionality in Set-Service, but given that it was:

• fixing the bug is a must, as we agree.

• however, not duplicating all the functionality seems silly, if adding -Force is all that it takes, especially given that, as demonstrated, in other aspects it can do more than one of its counterparts.
  (On a side note: status value suspended should probably be added as an alias for paused).

Adding a -Force switch to Start-Service is not a solution, because there is no sensible default for the startup type that invariably has to change in that case - unless you add -StartupType to Start-Service too, but that would then duplicate what Set-Service already does.

Yes, you can argue that the -Status parameter should never have been implemented, but, looking at the bigger picture, the Set verb has always had desired-state aspects in certain cmdlets, resulting in duplication as well; two examples:

• You can use Set-Variable without ever having to touch New-Variable - the variable is created on demand.

• You can use Set-Content to create a file on demand, without needing to use New-Item.

And, finally, another aspect in which Set-Service -Status provides extra (again, desired-state) functionality is that -Status Running either starts or resumes (continues) a service, as appropriate, whereas applying Start-Service to a suspended (paused) service results in an error.

however, not duplicating all the functionality seems silly,

No, it doesn't at all. Set- is for setting, Stop- is for stopping. if the ability to stop on set- goes beyond anything basic, you should use stop-. The ability to stop on set- is a convenience that arguably should not be there (and I'm not advocating for its removal, for clarity).

Tell me, absent -Status Stopped, what purposed does -Force have? If I see -Force on Set-Service is expect it to allow me to force service settings. In this case, the only thing force is good for is stopping the service. We already have Stop-Service -Force for that. For desired state, you are not likely going to be forcing the service to stop. Again, this adds complexity and redundancy, and I'm arguing for simplicity.

Edit: as a compromise, if everyone really thinks that having set- force stop a service is not as crazy as I think it is, how about -Status StoppedForced or something instead of -Force switch that only works for a specific single value on a single parameter?

Adding a -Force switch to Start-Service is not a solution, because there is no sensible default for the startup type that invariably has to change in that case

I disagree, setting it to manual, when you are "manually" forcing the service to start certainly serves as a sensible setting. But this is a discussion for another time, lets not continue it in this thread.

Ilya (@iSazonov) committee is on taking time off this week for Thanksgiving (US holiday), will resume next week

@PowerShell/powershell-committee reviewed this. Given that -Status Stopped is already there, it would make sense to support -Force for Set-Service

Zheng Gu (@zhenggu) Please add tests at : https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/test/powershell/Modules/Microsoft.PowerShell.Management/Set-Service.Tests.ps1

Steve Lee (@SteveL-MSFT) I would like the comittee to reconsider the approval of -Force for this PR. RE: #6113 (comment) and a few other discussions we have had here. The -Force in this PR not only applies to a single parameter, it also only applies to a single option for that parameter. I still believe including a ForceStopped or StoppedForced option for -Status is the better design choice and that we should avoid -Force abuse.

@PowerShell/powershell-committee reviewed this. The only applicable parameter to -Force is -Status (when value is Stopped) and there's no applicability to other parameters for this cmdlet. The usage is consistent with other cmdlets like Stop-Service, so committee continues to recommend using -Force for this case.

Travis Plunk (@TravisEz13) Please help to review again. Thanks.

Does this PR need another review?

Aditya Patwardhan (@adityapatwardhan) This looks ready for merge.

Zheng Gu (@zhenggu) Thanks for your contribution. Please add the PR submission template and update the appropriate fields. https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#pull-request---submission

The template is here: https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/blob/master/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

Aditya Patwardhan (@adityapatwardhan) for this PR adds a "-Force" parameter for Set-Service, but I am not sure should I modify https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell-Docs/blob/staging/reference/6/Microsoft.PowerShell.Management/Set-Service.md before this PR merged or it should be changed after it this PR is merged?

Zheng Gu (@zhenggu) Please open an issue or PR in PowerShell-Docs repo and add the link here.

Ilya (@iSazonov) Thanks, will add it

Aditya Patwardhan (@adityapatwardhan) have added the document, and all the actions are ready, please help to review.

Zheng Gu (@zhenggu) The tests are classified as Feature so I pushed an empty commit with [Feature] to run all tests. If all tests pass, I will go ahead and merge.

Zheng Gu (@zhenggu) Please have a look at the failures and for the next commit have [Feature] in your commit message to ensure all tests are executed. See this for more details.

Aditya Patwardhan (@adityapatwardhan), all test cases passed, please help to merge.

Zheng Gu (@zhenggu) Thank you for your contribution!

Thanks everyone's help to my first PR

Zheng Gu (@zhenggu) Thanks for your contribution and patience! I hope you will continue.