Fix delta deleted entry deserialization failure observed when reason appears before id in payload

[gathogojr]

Issues

This pull request fixes #2604.

Description

This pull request fixes deserialization failure observed when reason property appears before id property in a delta deleted entry (4.0) payload, e.g.:

{"reason":"deleted","id":"http://tempuri.org/Customers(1)"}

Fixed by modifying the logic in ODataJsonLightResourceDeserializer's ReadDeletedEntry and ReadDeletedEntryAsync methods to read the properties in whichever order they appear.

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

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

[xuzhg]

[xuzhg]

Typically, for property reading, we are using while () {} loop.
I am not fans for 'while()' loop. But, If we can keep it consistent, it could be better.

[gathogojr]

@xuzhg I replaced the do {} while into a while {} loop. I figure it especially made sense if the JSON was malformed

[habbes]

I honestly find it funny that we have such a bug.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 115 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       : +85 -30
Percentile : 43%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +85 -30

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.