Powershell running a scriptblock - scope, dot-sourcing










1















I want to write a function that accepts a scriptblock as a parameter and executes that scriptblock in the scope in which it was invoked.



The Measure-Command is an example of the behavior I would like. The scriptblock runs in with the same scope as the Measure-Command itself. If the scriptblock references a variable in this scope, the script can change it.



Attached is a sample scriptblock that increments the $a variable. When invoked by Measure-Command, the variable is incremented. But when invoked by the Wrapper functions, the variable will not increment -- unless I dot-source both the invocation of the Wrapper function and the Wrapper function itself uses dot-sourcing.



function Wrapper1

param( $scriptBlock )
$startTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss Start script" -f $startTime )
& $scriptBlock
$endTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss End script - 1:c seconds elapsed" -f $endTime, ( $endTime - $StartTime ) )


function Wrapper2

param( $scriptBlock )
$startTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss Start script" -f $startTime )
. $scriptBlock
$endTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss End script - 1:c seconds elapsed" -f $endTime, ( $endTime - $StartTime ) )


$a = 1
Write-Output "Initial state: `$a = $a"

Measure-Command $a++ | Out-Null
Write-Output "Measure-Command results: `$a = $a"

Wrapper1 $a++
Write-Output "Wrapper1 results: `$a = $a"

. Wrapper1 $a++
Write-Output "dot-sourced Wrapper1 results: `$a = $a"

Wrapper2 $a++
Write-Output "Wrapper2 results: `$a = $a"

. Wrapper2 $a++
Write-Output "dot-sourced Wrapper2 results: `$a = $a"


The result of running this code is:



Initial state: $a = 1
Measure-Command results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
Wrapper1 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00.0157407 seconds elapsed
dot-sourced Wrapper1 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
Wrapper2 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
dot-sourced Wrapper2 results: $a = 3


Although this last option works, I'd like to avoid the dot-source syntax invoking Wrapper2. Is this possible? The Measure-Command doesn't use the dot-source syntax so it seems that it would be possible.










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    Put wrapper function in a module.

    – PetSerAl
    Nov 14 '18 at 23:14















1















I want to write a function that accepts a scriptblock as a parameter and executes that scriptblock in the scope in which it was invoked.



The Measure-Command is an example of the behavior I would like. The scriptblock runs in with the same scope as the Measure-Command itself. If the scriptblock references a variable in this scope, the script can change it.



Attached is a sample scriptblock that increments the $a variable. When invoked by Measure-Command, the variable is incremented. But when invoked by the Wrapper functions, the variable will not increment -- unless I dot-source both the invocation of the Wrapper function and the Wrapper function itself uses dot-sourcing.



function Wrapper1

param( $scriptBlock )
$startTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss Start script" -f $startTime )
& $scriptBlock
$endTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss End script - 1:c seconds elapsed" -f $endTime, ( $endTime - $StartTime ) )


function Wrapper2

param( $scriptBlock )
$startTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss Start script" -f $startTime )
. $scriptBlock
$endTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss End script - 1:c seconds elapsed" -f $endTime, ( $endTime - $StartTime ) )


$a = 1
Write-Output "Initial state: `$a = $a"

Measure-Command $a++ | Out-Null
Write-Output "Measure-Command results: `$a = $a"

Wrapper1 $a++
Write-Output "Wrapper1 results: `$a = $a"

. Wrapper1 $a++
Write-Output "dot-sourced Wrapper1 results: `$a = $a"

Wrapper2 $a++
Write-Output "Wrapper2 results: `$a = $a"

. Wrapper2 $a++
Write-Output "dot-sourced Wrapper2 results: `$a = $a"


The result of running this code is:



Initial state: $a = 1
Measure-Command results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
Wrapper1 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00.0157407 seconds elapsed
dot-sourced Wrapper1 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
Wrapper2 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
dot-sourced Wrapper2 results: $a = 3


Although this last option works, I'd like to avoid the dot-source syntax invoking Wrapper2. Is this possible? The Measure-Command doesn't use the dot-source syntax so it seems that it would be possible.










share|improve this question

















  • 1





    Put wrapper function in a module.

    – PetSerAl
    Nov 14 '18 at 23:14













1












1








1


1






I want to write a function that accepts a scriptblock as a parameter and executes that scriptblock in the scope in which it was invoked.



The Measure-Command is an example of the behavior I would like. The scriptblock runs in with the same scope as the Measure-Command itself. If the scriptblock references a variable in this scope, the script can change it.



Attached is a sample scriptblock that increments the $a variable. When invoked by Measure-Command, the variable is incremented. But when invoked by the Wrapper functions, the variable will not increment -- unless I dot-source both the invocation of the Wrapper function and the Wrapper function itself uses dot-sourcing.



function Wrapper1

param( $scriptBlock )
$startTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss Start script" -f $startTime )
& $scriptBlock
$endTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss End script - 1:c seconds elapsed" -f $endTime, ( $endTime - $StartTime ) )


function Wrapper2

param( $scriptBlock )
$startTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss Start script" -f $startTime )
. $scriptBlock
$endTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss End script - 1:c seconds elapsed" -f $endTime, ( $endTime - $StartTime ) )


$a = 1
Write-Output "Initial state: `$a = $a"

Measure-Command $a++ | Out-Null
Write-Output "Measure-Command results: `$a = $a"

Wrapper1 $a++
Write-Output "Wrapper1 results: `$a = $a"

. Wrapper1 $a++
Write-Output "dot-sourced Wrapper1 results: `$a = $a"

Wrapper2 $a++
Write-Output "Wrapper2 results: `$a = $a"

. Wrapper2 $a++
Write-Output "dot-sourced Wrapper2 results: `$a = $a"


The result of running this code is:



Initial state: $a = 1
Measure-Command results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
Wrapper1 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00.0157407 seconds elapsed
dot-sourced Wrapper1 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
Wrapper2 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
dot-sourced Wrapper2 results: $a = 3


Although this last option works, I'd like to avoid the dot-source syntax invoking Wrapper2. Is this possible? The Measure-Command doesn't use the dot-source syntax so it seems that it would be possible.










share|improve this question














I want to write a function that accepts a scriptblock as a parameter and executes that scriptblock in the scope in which it was invoked.



The Measure-Command is an example of the behavior I would like. The scriptblock runs in with the same scope as the Measure-Command itself. If the scriptblock references a variable in this scope, the script can change it.



Attached is a sample scriptblock that increments the $a variable. When invoked by Measure-Command, the variable is incremented. But when invoked by the Wrapper functions, the variable will not increment -- unless I dot-source both the invocation of the Wrapper function and the Wrapper function itself uses dot-sourcing.



function Wrapper1

param( $scriptBlock )
$startTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss Start script" -f $startTime )
& $scriptBlock
$endTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss End script - 1:c seconds elapsed" -f $endTime, ( $endTime - $StartTime ) )


function Wrapper2

param( $scriptBlock )
$startTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss Start script" -f $startTime )
. $scriptBlock
$endTime = Get-Date
Write-Output ( "0:HH:mm:ss End script - 1:c seconds elapsed" -f $endTime, ( $endTime - $StartTime ) )


$a = 1
Write-Output "Initial state: `$a = $a"

Measure-Command $a++ | Out-Null
Write-Output "Measure-Command results: `$a = $a"

Wrapper1 $a++
Write-Output "Wrapper1 results: `$a = $a"

. Wrapper1 $a++
Write-Output "dot-sourced Wrapper1 results: `$a = $a"

Wrapper2 $a++
Write-Output "Wrapper2 results: `$a = $a"

. Wrapper2 $a++
Write-Output "dot-sourced Wrapper2 results: `$a = $a"


The result of running this code is:



Initial state: $a = 1
Measure-Command results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
Wrapper1 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00.0157407 seconds elapsed
dot-sourced Wrapper1 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
Wrapper2 results: $a = 2
13:44:49 Start script
13:44:49 End script - 00:00:00 seconds elapsed
dot-sourced Wrapper2 results: $a = 3


Although this last option works, I'd like to avoid the dot-source syntax invoking Wrapper2. Is this possible? The Measure-Command doesn't use the dot-source syntax so it seems that it would be possible.







function powershell scope






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 14 '18 at 22:11









bretthbretth

887




887







  • 1





    Put wrapper function in a module.

    – PetSerAl
    Nov 14 '18 at 23:14












  • 1





    Put wrapper function in a module.

    – PetSerAl
    Nov 14 '18 at 23:14







1




1





Put wrapper function in a module.

– PetSerAl
Nov 14 '18 at 23:14





Put wrapper function in a module.

– PetSerAl
Nov 14 '18 at 23:14












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














PetSerAl, as he is wont to do, has provided the crucial pointer in a terse comment on the question:



Putting the function in a module, along with dot-sourced invocation of the script-block argument, solves the problem:



$null = New-Module 
function Wrapper
param($ScriptBlock)
. $ScriptBlock



$a = 1
Wrapper $a++

$a


The above yields 2, proving that the script block executed in the caller's scope.



For an explanation of why this works and why it is necessary, see this answer to a related question.



Note: The above approach doesn't extend to pipeline use, where you'll want to pass script blocks that expect to use automatic variable $_ to reference the object at hand (e.g.,
1, 2, 3 | Wrapper $_ ... ; to support this use case, a workaround is needed - see this answer.






share|improve this answer
























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53309503%2fpowershell-running-a-scriptblock-scope-dot-sourcing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    PetSerAl, as he is wont to do, has provided the crucial pointer in a terse comment on the question:



    Putting the function in a module, along with dot-sourced invocation of the script-block argument, solves the problem:



    $null = New-Module 
    function Wrapper
    param($ScriptBlock)
    . $ScriptBlock



    $a = 1
    Wrapper $a++

    $a


    The above yields 2, proving that the script block executed in the caller's scope.



    For an explanation of why this works and why it is necessary, see this answer to a related question.



    Note: The above approach doesn't extend to pipeline use, where you'll want to pass script blocks that expect to use automatic variable $_ to reference the object at hand (e.g.,
    1, 2, 3 | Wrapper $_ ... ; to support this use case, a workaround is needed - see this answer.






    share|improve this answer





























      1














      PetSerAl, as he is wont to do, has provided the crucial pointer in a terse comment on the question:



      Putting the function in a module, along with dot-sourced invocation of the script-block argument, solves the problem:



      $null = New-Module 
      function Wrapper
      param($ScriptBlock)
      . $ScriptBlock



      $a = 1
      Wrapper $a++

      $a


      The above yields 2, proving that the script block executed in the caller's scope.



      For an explanation of why this works and why it is necessary, see this answer to a related question.



      Note: The above approach doesn't extend to pipeline use, where you'll want to pass script blocks that expect to use automatic variable $_ to reference the object at hand (e.g.,
      1, 2, 3 | Wrapper $_ ... ; to support this use case, a workaround is needed - see this answer.






      share|improve this answer



























        1












        1








        1







        PetSerAl, as he is wont to do, has provided the crucial pointer in a terse comment on the question:



        Putting the function in a module, along with dot-sourced invocation of the script-block argument, solves the problem:



        $null = New-Module 
        function Wrapper
        param($ScriptBlock)
        . $ScriptBlock



        $a = 1
        Wrapper $a++

        $a


        The above yields 2, proving that the script block executed in the caller's scope.



        For an explanation of why this works and why it is necessary, see this answer to a related question.



        Note: The above approach doesn't extend to pipeline use, where you'll want to pass script blocks that expect to use automatic variable $_ to reference the object at hand (e.g.,
        1, 2, 3 | Wrapper $_ ... ; to support this use case, a workaround is needed - see this answer.






        share|improve this answer















        PetSerAl, as he is wont to do, has provided the crucial pointer in a terse comment on the question:



        Putting the function in a module, along with dot-sourced invocation of the script-block argument, solves the problem:



        $null = New-Module 
        function Wrapper
        param($ScriptBlock)
        . $ScriptBlock



        $a = 1
        Wrapper $a++

        $a


        The above yields 2, proving that the script block executed in the caller's scope.



        For an explanation of why this works and why it is necessary, see this answer to a related question.



        Note: The above approach doesn't extend to pipeline use, where you'll want to pass script blocks that expect to use automatic variable $_ to reference the object at hand (e.g.,
        1, 2, 3 | Wrapper $_ ... ; to support this use case, a workaround is needed - see this answer.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Jan 23 at 15:02

























        answered Nov 15 '18 at 3:48









        mklement0mklement0

        136k22254290




        136k22254290





























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53309503%2fpowershell-running-a-scriptblock-scope-dot-sourcing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Use pre created SQLite database for Android project in kotlin

            Darth Vader #20

            Ondo