BREAKING CHANGE: ScheduledTask: Update and fix existing task trigger parameters

[Borgquite]

Pull Request (PR) description

Updates and fixes various issues with task trigger parameters: In theory we are only adding new interfaces but due to general ScheduledTask flakiness this is marked as a BREAKING CHANGE.

• Adds new Scheduled Types: OnIdle, AtCreation, OnSessionState
• Adds StateChange parameter to allow specifying which session state changes trigger the launch (requires OnSessionState schedule type to be set).
• Allows StartTime to be specified for all schedule types - the underlying variable (StartBoundary) is used by Windows for the 'Activate at' setting even on triggers other than 'Once', 'Daily' and 'Weekly'.
• Updated RandomDelay logic from a blacklist to a whitelist as it is only supported by a very small number of schedule types
• Added StopAtDurationEnd parameter
• Added TriggerExecutionTimeLimit parameter (will do much the same as ExecutionTimeLimit until this resource is updated to support multiple triggers, but the separate parameter does exist)
• Updated Delay parameter logic to reflect other TimeSpan based values, and support AtLogon, AtStartup, AtCreation and OnSessionState schedule types.
• Fixed User parameter to return the correct value instead of reflecting the Credential user value, plus updated logic for use with OnSessionState as well as AtLogon, and to be set if LogonType = Group,

This Pull Request (PR) fixes the following issues

• Fixes #168
• Fixes #282
• Fixes #345

Task list

• [x] Added an entry to the change log under the Unreleased section of the file CHANGELOG.md. Entry should say what was changed and how that affects users (if applicable), and reference the issue being resolved (if applicable).
• [ ] Resource documentation added/updated in README.md.
• [x] Resource parameter descriptions added/updated in README.md, schema.mof and comment-based help.
• [x] Comment-based help added/updated.
• [x] Localization strings added/updated in all localization files as appropriate.
• [x] Examples appropriately added/updated.
• [x] Unit tests added/updated. See DSC Community Testing Guidelines.
• [x] Integration tests added/updated (where possible). See DSC Community Testing Guidelines.
• [x] New/changed code adheres to DSC Community Style Guidelines.

---

This change is 

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 89%. Comparing base (62ba944) to head (7d0df88). Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/dsccommunity/ComputerManagementDsc/pull/437?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=dsccommunity) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #437 +/- ## =================================== Coverage 88% 89% =================================== Files 19 19 Lines 1797 1831 +34 =================================== + Hits 1598 1642 +44 + Misses 199 189 -10 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/dsccommunity/ComputerManagementDsc/pull/437/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=dsccommunity) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [](https://app.codecov.io/gh/dsccommunity/ComputerManagementDsc/pull/437/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=dsccommunity) | `?` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=dsccommunity#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Files with missing lines](https://app.codecov.io/gh/dsccommunity/ComputerManagementDsc/pull/437?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=dsccommunity) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [...Resources/DSC\_ScheduledTask/DSC\_ScheduledTask.psm1](https://app.codecov.io/gh/dsccommunity/ComputerManagementDsc/pull/437?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=source%2FDSCResources%2FDSC_ScheduledTask%2FDSC_ScheduledTask.psm1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=dsccommunity#diff-c291cmNlL0RTQ1Jlc291cmNlcy9EU0NfU2NoZWR1bGVkVGFzay9EU0NfU2NoZWR1bGVkVGFzay5wc20x) | `91% <100%> (+3%)` | :arrow_up: |

[Borgquite]

Still working on this - will hope to get more examples & sort tests imminently.

[PlagueHO]

@dan-hughes - It'll be a BREAKING CHANGE if the interface changes would break existing configurations. Otherwise, it would just be a minor number increase. Looking through the change (briefly) the interface changes seemed to be mostly additive - but adding new parameters can still cause configs to break (or change behaviour).

My recommendation for this one though is to make it a BREAKING CHANGE. ScheduleTask is one of the most nitpicky resources (because of the different ways the Windows team implemented it - check the backlog of issues down to different implementations in Windows). It has a tendency to have various side effects and undocumented behaviors -especially between versions of the OS. So, I'd probably err on the side of caution for this one and just make it a BREAKING CHANGE. Rather be safe than sorry :grinning:

If I have time to review (and it's still open), come the weekend I'll have time.

[Borgquite]

@PlagueHO That makes sense. I have noted how weird the implementation seems to be. If I were starting from scratch it might have been better to implement the whole thing using Register-ScheduledTask and New-CimInstance (e.g. my example here) https://stackoverflow.com/a/78703118/12872270 as I'm guessing doing it at a low-level WMI/CIM objects might have circumvented the various weirdness and missing features in the abstraction layer the PowerShell New-ScheduledTask* cmdlets add. Of course that wouldn't avoid any OS-level issues. Nevermind. At least we're getting near to feature completeness now.

[dan-hughes]

Reviewable status: 15 of 17 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dan-hughes)

_source/DSCResources/DSC_ScheduledTask/DSC_ScheduledTask.psm1 line 2125 at r3 (raw file):_

Previously, dan-hughes (Daniel Hughes) wrote… Have fully qualified - but if I remove [System.String], it stops Test-TargetResource returning true when resource is in the desired state (which is why it was in there in the first place) ? https://dev.azure.com/dsccommunity/ComputerManagementDsc/_build/results?buildId=9571&view=logs&j=7d3af221-dd98-540f-35f6-de201108da76&t=0a82f033-7b8c-5c12-0fd5-dbd7a46d75ab

Probably due to the schema being [System.String]. If it's needed then so be it.

_source/DSCResources/DSC_ScheduledTask/DSC_ScheduledTask.psm1 line 23 at r4 (raw file):_

Previously, dan-hughes (Daniel Hughes) wrote… Done. (And glad you asked me to do it - made me see that StateChange has a couple of outlying values at the end!) :) https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/taskschd/sessionstatechangetrigger-statechange

😊

[dan-hughes]

@johlju, @PlagueHO, review complete.

[Borgquite]

(Fixing this uncovered another bug in my integration tests which was being masked by the previous behaviour so there's a change in those too)

[johlju]

Merging this. As it is a breaking change, any other issues can be resolved in other PRs 🙂