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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Do not fail if parenthesis are not in expected state #2828

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: release-7.x
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Do not fail if parenthesis are not in expected state #2828

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

ificator
Copy link
Contributor

Issues

This pull request fixes #2827

Description

Modify ExtractSegmentIdentifierAndParenthesisExpression so that it doesn't throw when the parenthesis are in an unexpected state for key-as-parameter.

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

  • Test cases added
  • Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated Pull Request Quantifier (deprecated)
Copy link

This PR has 136 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       : +98 -38
Percentile : 47.2%

Total files changed: 5

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +98 -38

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.

habbes
habbes reviewed Jan 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
src/Microsoft.OData.Core/UriParser/Parsers/ODataPathParser.cs
Comment on lines +101 to +105
if (containsOpenParenthesis != endsWithCloseParenthesis && !enableKeyAsSegment)
{
identifier = segmentText;
parenthesisExpression = null;
// If the parenthesis are not in the expected state fail with a syntax error. We do not do this for key-as-segment
// because in that case the segment text is potentially still a valid key value.
throw ExceptionUtil.CreateSyntaxError();
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 condition consistent with existing behaviour?

In the current behaviour, if the segment does not contain and open parenthesis but ends with closing parenthesis, e.g. folder), the condition would pass and the identifier would be set to the segmentText.

However, in your change, if the segment does not contain an open parenthesis but ends with closing parenthesis, the condition would fail when enableKeyAsSegment is false and a segment like folder) would throw an error.

habbes
habbes reviewed Jan 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
test/FunctionalTests/Microsoft.OData.Core.Tests/UriParser/Parsers/ODataPathParserTests.cs
ExtractSegmentIdentifierAndParenthesisExpression(enableKeyAsSegment: false, "multiple words", "multiple words", null);
ExtractSegmentIdentifierAndParenthesisExpression(enableKeyAsSegment: false, "multiple(123)", "multiple", "123");
ExtractSegmentIdentifierAndParenthesisExpression(enableKeyAsSegment: false, "multiple(123;321)", "multiple", "123;321");
ExtractSegmentIdentifierAndParenthesisExpression(enableKeyAsSegment: false, "set()", "set", string.Empty);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you add a test case for a scenario that does not contain an ( but ends with a ), like blah), I expect the result would be blah) for the identifier and null for the parenthesis expression.

habbes
habbes reviewed Jan 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
test/FunctionalTests/Microsoft.OData.Core.Tests/UriParser/Parsers/ODataPathParserTests.cs
ExtractSegmentIdentifierAndParenthesisExpression(enableKeyAsSegment: true, "multiple(123;321)", "multiple", "123;321");
ExtractSegmentIdentifierAndParenthesisExpression(enableKeyAsSegment: true, "set()", "set", string.Empty);
ExtractSegmentIdentifierAndParenthesisExpression(enableKeyAsSegment: true, "()", "()", null);
ExtractSegmentIdentifierAndParenthesisExpression(enableKeyAsSegment: true, "foo(", "foo(", null);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you add a test case for a scenario that does not contain an ( but ends with a ), like blah).

Also, is it a good idea to support different syntaxes depending on whether key as segment is enabled?

habbes
habbes reviewed Jan 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
test/FunctionalTests/Microsoft.OData.Core.Tests/UriParser/Parsers/UriTemplateParserTests.cs
@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ public void ErrorParameterTemplateInputShouldThrow()
};

Action action = () => uriParser.ParsePath();
action.Throws<ODataException>(errorCase.Error);
action.ThrowsAny<ODataException>(errorCase.Error);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What's the difference between Throws and ThrowsAny?

habbes
habbes requested changes Jan 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@habbes habbes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Confirm whether this change throws an exception when a segment that does not contain an opening parenthesis ends with a closing parenthesis, and whether that would be a regression.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@habbes habbes habbes requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Medium
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ODataPathParser fails valid keys with parenthesis
2 participants
@ificator @habbes