Move Windows pinvokes

[iSazonov]

PR Summary

Please review commit by commit.

Contributes to #18553.

1. Move Windows pinvokes (migrated to LibraryImport in Replace DllImport with LibraryImport in engine #18496 and Replace DllImport with LibraryImport in SMA 1 #18520) to new location.
2. Exclude from compile in csproj instead of using #if-#endif

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
  • None
  • OR
  • Experimental feature(s) needed
    • Experimental feature name(s):
• User-facing changes
  • Not Applicable
  • OR
  • Documentation needed
    • Issue filed:
• Testing - New and feature
  • N/A or can only be tested interactively
  • OR
  • Make sure you've added a new test if existing tests do not effectively test the code changed
• 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).
      • Issue filed:
    • Impact on Completions (both in the console and in editors) - one of PowerShell's most powerful features.
      • Issue filed:
    • Impact on PSScriptAnalyzer (which provides linting & formatting in the editor extensions).
      • Issue filed:
    • Impact on EditorSyntax (which provides syntax highlighting with in VSCode, GitHub, and many other editors).
      • Issue filed:

[jborean93]

I really don't mind the format that is ultimately used but it would be nice if there was a common standard set out by the pwsh team for PInvoke calls and how to structure them. I moved some of the WinTrust stuff in the PR #17545 and went with the format of

• Single file per dll
• Simple wrapper method that wraps the extern call with a more managed interface
  • Makes it simpler for multiple locations to call the same function but without having to add things like error checking in each reference

Here you've moved it to a single file per function and it's just the extern def.

I'm totally not opposed to any route we ultimately go for but it would be nice to choose one rather than fragmenting it even more.

[daxian-dbw]

I didn't realize it's organized as one file per function. Wouldn't that be too many files?
I personally prefer to single file per DLL.

[iSazonov]

The only inconvenience that many files might cause is if you tried to open them all at once in the editor. But why would you want to do that?
You will never be able to keep order in one big file. People will prefer IntelliSense to nested region directives.

[daxian-dbw]

An inconvenience off the top of my head is that it would be harder to search for something related to a p/invoke call, be it the use of a marshal attribute, a parameter type, or a function when you only remember partial of its name.

I personally prefer to have only a few files dedicated to all p/invokes. In case that a lot of functions get used from a dll, like the WinTrust stuff, then use a single file for that dll. For the rest, use a single file per platform if possible. This doesn't prevent you from using partial classes for all p/invokes of a specific platform.

[iSazonov]

An inconvenience off the top of my head is that it would be harder to search for something related to a p/invoke call, be it the use of a marshal attribute, a parameter type, or a function when you only remember partial of its name.

How is a partial search related to number of files? VS Code has great and very fast multi file search (Ctrl-Shift-F). Given how unpredictable the location of code in PowerShell is sometimes, I seem to use it more often than the single-file search.

I personally prefer to have only a few files dedicated to all p/invokes. In case that a lot of functions get used from a dll, like the WinTrust stuff, then use a single file for that dll. For the rest, use a single file per platform if possible. This doesn't prevent you from using partial classes for all p/invokes of a specific platform.

It's impossible to maintain any order in these files, especially since you're already talking about exceptions. These files are already unnecessarily huge. In fact, the code does not fit on one screen and you will anyway be forced to use search and possibly use additional editor windows even for the same file.
Moreover, this code is leaf and stable, ie rarely defeated change - for this reason alone it should have been removed from these big files.

[daxian-dbw]

Since @SteveL-MSFT agreed to adopt the .NET style for organizing the p/invokes in another PR, I will stop arguing for my personal preference.

Just a side note, for existing code like WinTrust.cs, you may want to keep all those p/invoke in a single file. Splitting them into 1 file per function is lots of extra work, and also may be troublesome in case that some structs are shared by multiple functions.

[iSazonov]

@daxian-dbw
I expect that the .Net team will actively improve LibraryImport in .Net 8. This is another argument for removing pinvokes and related code from the main code and sticking to their style.
Once they finish this work this code will be so stable that it can be placed in just one file, or even in a separate repository.

By the way, they sometimes put related pinvokes in the same file. The main convenience for the current work.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 413 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Large
Size       : +236 -177
Percentile : 80.43%

Total files changed: 27

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +230 -175
.csproj : +6 -2

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.

[SteveL-MSFT]

LGTM

[iSazonov]

@daxian-dbw Could you merge?

[daxian-dbw]

@iSazonov Thanks for doing this refactoring!

[ghost]

🎉v7.4.0-preview.1 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

• Release Notes