refactoring Jason/Mikey RFC#1576
Draft
gaelcolas wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Note
Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.
Adds RFC 0001 and supporting documentation describing a contract for PowerShell class-based PSDSC resources to participate in DSC v3 semantics via the PowerShell adapter.
Changes:
- Introduces RFC0001 specifying class shape, method signatures, and adapter expectations for class-based PSDSC resources in DSC v3.
- Adds a conceptual guide with examples for authoring class-based PSDSC resources compatible with PSDSC v1/v2 and DSC v3.
- Updates the resources overview to link to the new authoring guide.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| rfc/draft/rfc0001.md | Adds the formal RFC draft defining the proposed contract and adapter behavior. |
| docs/concepts/resources/overview.md | Adds a navigation link to the new class-based PSDSC v3 authoring guide. |
| docs/concepts/resources/class-based-psdsc-v3.md | Adds a conceptual article and example showing how to implement the RFC contract. |
Comment on lines
+2
to
+6
| RFC: RFC0001 # WG will set the number after submission | ||
| Author: jahelmic # <@GitHubUserName> | ||
| Sponsor: michaeltlombardi # <@GitHubUserName> | ||
| Status: Draft # <Draft | Experimental | Accepted | Final> | ||
| SupercededBy: null # <Superceding RFC Number> |
Comment on lines
+107
to
+120
| static [string] InstanceJsonSchema() { | ||
| return ( | ||
| @{ | ||
| '$schema' = 'https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema' | ||
| type = 'object' | ||
| required = @('name') | ||
| properties = @{ | ||
| name = @{ type = 'string' } | ||
| version = @{ type = 'string' } | ||
| _exist = @{ | ||
| '$ref' = 'https://aka.ms/dsc/schemas/v3/resource/properties/exist.json' | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ConvertTo-Json -Depth 10 -Compress |
Comment on lines
+155
to
+157
| if ($null -eq $filteringInstance) { | ||
| throw 'Invalid operation' | ||
| } |
SteveL-MSFT
requested changes
Jun 24, 2026
| | Set | `[void] Set()` | `static [void] Set(...)`, `static [<ResourceClass>] Set(...)`, or `static [System.Tuple[<ResourceClass>, String[]]] Set(...)` | | ||
| | Delete | not available | `static [void] Delete([<ResourceClass>]$instance)` | | ||
| | Export | not available | `static [<ResourceClass>[]] Export()` and/or `static [<ResourceClass>[]] Export([<ResourceClass>]$filteringInstance)` | | ||
| | Schema | MOF or class properties | `static [string] InstanceJsonSchema()` | |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't we just want the JSONSchema to be in the adapted manifest?
| | --- | --- | --- | | ||
| | Get | `[<ResourceClass>] Get()` | `static [<ResourceClass>] Get([<ResourceClass>]$instance)` | | ||
| | Test | `[bool] Test()` | `static [System.Tuple[bool, <ResourceClass>]] Test(...)` or `static [System.Tuple[bool, <ResourceClass>, String[]]] Test(...)` | | ||
| | Set | `[void] Set()` | `static [void] Set(...)`, `static [<ResourceClass>] Set(...)`, or `static [System.Tuple[<ResourceClass>, String[]]] Set(...)` | |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How would --what-if work here for both set and delete?
| | Test | `[bool] Test()` | `static [System.Tuple[bool, <ResourceClass>]] Test(...)` or `static [System.Tuple[bool, <ResourceClass>, String[]]] Test(...)` | | ||
| | Set | `[void] Set()` | `static [void] Set(...)`, `static [<ResourceClass>] Set(...)`, or `static [System.Tuple[<ResourceClass>, String[]]] Set(...)` | | ||
| | Delete | not available | `static [void] Delete([<ResourceClass>]$instance)` | | ||
| | Export | not available | `static [<ResourceClass>[]] Export()` and/or `static [<ResourceClass>[]] Export([<ResourceClass>]$filteringInstance)` | |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a PR out to add support for separate schema for export filtering. Reusing the same PS class for export would mean that key still needs to be populated even though it's not needed for export. Alternatively, we could say that the code uses the same type, but any constraints is purely defined in the JSONSchema.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
For @theJasonHelmick and @michaeltlombardi, I've tried to refactor the RFC into something lighter, easier to chew, by moving (maybe aggressively) all related explanations to
docs/in order to keep the RFC concise on the proposal.All parts link back to those docs.
Let me know how that look.