Add support for Cert:\Service certificates

[jborean93]

PR Summary

Add support for managing service certificate stores using the Cert:\Service$serviceName$storeName syntax. This expands on the existing set of locations CurrentUser and LocalMachine and also sets up the code to support future store locations like User.

PR Context

Windows supports certificates to be stored in a service context which can be used by services like NTDS to store a certificate used for LDAPS. Currently the Cert provider only supports the CurrentUser and LocalMachine locations and dotnet does not offer a managed way to open any other locations. This adds the capability to manage stores for another service under Cert:\Service\$serviceName, for example Get-ChildItem -Path Cert:\Service\NTDS\My will enumerate all the certificates in the Personal\My store for the NTDS service.

PR Checklist

• [x] PR has a meaningful title
  • Use the present tense and imperative mood when describing your changes
• [x] Summarized changes
• [x] Make sure all .h, .cpp, .cs, .ps1 and .psm1 files have the correct copyright header
• [x] This PR is ready to merge and is not Work in Progress.
  • If the PR is work in progress, please add the prefix WIP: or [ WIP ] to the beginning of the title (the WIP bot will keep its status check at Pending while the prefix is present) and remove the prefix when the PR is ready.
• Breaking changes
  • [x] None
  • OR
  • [ ] Experimental feature(s) needed
    • [ ] Experimental feature name(s):
• User-facing changes
  • [ ] Not Applicable
  • OR
  • [x] Documentation needed
    • [x] Issue filed: https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/PowerShell-Docs/pull/9932
• Testing - New and feature
  • [ ] N/A or can only be tested interactively
  • OR
  • [x] Make sure you've added a new test if existing tests do not effectively test the code changed
• Tooling
  • [x] I have considered the user experience from a tooling perspective and don't believe tooling will be impacted.
  • OR
  • [ ] I have considered the user experience from a tooling perspective and opened an issue in the relevant tool repository. This may include:
    • [ ] Impact on PowerShell Editor Services which is used in the PowerShell extension for VSCode (which runs in a different PS Host).
      • [ ] Issue filed:
    • [ ] Impact on Completions (both in the console and in editors) - one of PowerShell's most powerful features.
      • [ ] Issue filed:
    • [ ] Impact on PSScriptAnalyzer (which provides linting & formatting in the editor extensions).
      • [ ] Issue filed:
    • [ ] Impact on EditorSyntax (which provides syntax highlighting with in VSCode, GitHub, and many other editors).
      • [ ] Issue filed:

[jborean93]

This still needs tests and some doc updates. I prefer not to work on this unless I know the PowerShell team is at all interested in the changes here. If not I won't spend any more time on it.

[SteveL-MSFT]

@jborean93 I've asked the Engines WG to make a call

[iSazonov]

I personally like this and ready to review.

/cc @SteveL-MSFT

[daxian-dbw]

I think it's a great enhancement for the certificate provider, and we should take this one.

[SteveL-MSFT]

Cmdlet-WG will be reviewing this (and others) on Wed

[jborean93]

Docs PR for this new feature https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/PowerShell-Docs/pull/9932. This should be ready for a proper review now.

[jborean93]

@adityapatwardhan I've fixed up the CodeFactor errors.

[ghost]

This pull request has been automatically marked as Review Needed because it has been there has not been any activity for 7 days. Maintainer, please provide feedback and/or mark it as Waiting on Author

[daxian-dbw]

@jborean93 May I ask why you decided to close this PR? This feels like a good enhancement in my opinion.

[daxian-dbw]

In fact, the Engine WG talked about this PR in the meeting of 3/20/2023, but I forgot to post a comment for the conclusion. I apologize for that. The Engine WG agreed that we should accept this PR.

[ghost]

This pull request has been automatically marked as Review Needed because it has been there has not been any activity for 7 days. Maintainer, please provide feedback and/or mark it as Waiting on Author

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated[bot]]

This PR has 329 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +234 -95
Percentile : 72.9%

Total files changed: 6

Change summary by file extension:
.resx : +1 -1
.cs : +168 -90
.ps1 : +65 -4

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? :thumbsup:  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email) Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[jborean93]

Ping on this one, I've addressed as much as I can on the last review so wanting to try and progress this one some more.

[jborean93]

can you make this an experimental feature?

I understand the suggestion to designate this as an experimental feature, but I'm not fully convinced of its necessity at this stage. Currently, the new feature operates on an opt-in basis, simply by adding an extra directory entry in the provider path. Introducing it as an experimental feature might inadvertently make it harder for users to discover. Additionally, it could potentially complicate the codebase, requiring various conditional statements to manage support for the feature across different areas it affects.

From a developer's standpoint, I've encountered challenges with implementing experimental features in the past, particularly concerning documentation and testing procedures. It's been a somewhat frustrating experience, as each pull request seems to handle things slightly differently. Perhaps we could spend some time outside of this PR to explore improving the documentation and general workflow when it comes to experimental features. This will help not just myself but developer's and also give maintainers a nice easy way to request new features be implemented as an experimental feature.

[microsoft-github-policy-service[bot]]

This pull request has been automatically marked as Review Needed because it has been there has not been any activity for 7 days. Maintainer, please provide feedback and/or mark it as Waiting on Author