Ilya (@iSazonov) I totally understand the good intention behind those changes -- some temporary array allocations will be saved for those string.Format usages with more than 3 formatting arguments. However, readability and stability are equally important (if not more important), and therefore, the perf change should not sacrifice readability and stability.

For remoting connection strings, message packets, and WSMan XML, it's best to not touch this code unnecessarily for stability reason, and certainly not make it less readable.

Instead of reverting I have another suggestion. We could add comments with the old formatting lines before the new code.

Comments are easy to be out of sync with the code. Some string.Format instances don't have the overhead of temp array allocation. For some other that do have an overhead, they may not be important for optimization (such as the ToString overloads in Binders). If it's more important to keep the template clear and readable, it's OK to not optimize it with the interpolated string. This micro-optimization is good add-on when it's appropriate, but it's not necessary to apply it everywhere unconditionally.

This PR has 380 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Label      : Large
Size       : +298 -82
Percentile : 78%

Total files changed: 35

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +298 -82

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

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.

🎉v7.4.0-preview.2 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

• Release Notes

I'm not sure if this is by design, but it would not be my preference.

commit

    # 7.3.8
    PS7.3> pwsh -nop -c '(Get-Date | Group-Object).Name'
    2023-10-19 13:28:30
    # 7.4.0-preview.6
    PS7.4> pwsh -nop -c '(Get-Date | Group-Object).Name'
    10/19/2023 13:28:26

I don't think datetime values should be converted to InvariantCulture in general, it's a bit confusing for anyone outside US..

perhaps a more "common" use case,
gci . | group Creationtime
now returns all dateformats in InvariantCulture (MM/dd/yyyy HH:mm:ss) as well.

I'm not sure if it's affecting other commands.

The use of Invariant culture needs enormous care

As Andree Renneus (@trackd) mentions above, it results in "Least significant in the middle" date formatting which is considered broken outside the US, and a uses "." as a decimal separator which is not used in France, Germany, etc. (Worse . is the thousand separator in some cultures).

Any replacement of a .ToString() - which will use local culture - with a something which is effectively .ToString(US Culture) will appear to non US users as a regression.