I'm learning PowerShell and a vast number of articles I read strongly discourages the use of write-host telling me it's "bad practice" and almost always, the output can be displayed in another way.
So, I'm taking the advice and try to avoid use of write-host. One suggestion I found was to use write-output instead. As far as I understand, this puts everything in a pipeline, and the output is executed at the end of the script (?).
However, I have problems outputting what I want. This example demonstrates the issue:
$properties = #{'OSBuild'="910ef01.2.8779";
'OSVersion'="CustomOS 3";
'BIOSSerial'="A5FT-XT2H-5A4B-X9NM"}
$object = New-Object –TypeName PSObject –Prop $properties
Write-output $object
$properties = #{'Site'="SQL site";
'Server'="SQL Server";
'Database'="SQL Database"}
$object = New-Object –TypeName PSObject –Prop $properties
Write-Output $object
This way I get a nice output of the first object displaying the OS data, but the second object containing the SQL data is never displayed. I've tried renaming the variable names, and a bunch of other different stuff, but no luck.
While troubleshooting this problem, I found similar problems with suggestions to just replace write-output with write-host. This gets me very confused. Why are some people strongly discouraging write-host, while other people encourage it?
And how exactly do I output these two objects in a fashionably manner? I do not fully understand the pipeline mechanism of write-output.
Just to clarify: the problem is only a display problem:
When outputting to the console, if the first object is table-formatted (if Format-Table is applied, which happens implicitly in your case), the display columns are locked in based on that first object's properties.
Since your second output object shares no properties with the first one, it contributes nothing to the table display and is therefore effectively invisible.
By contrast, if you programmatically process the script's output - assign it to a variable or send its output through the pipeline to another command - both objects will be there.
See Charlie Joynt's answer for a helpful example of assigning the two output objects to separate variables.
The simplest solution to the display problem is to explicitly format for display each input object individually - see below.
For a given single object inside a script, you can force formatted to-display (to-host) output with Out-Host:
$object | Out-Host # same as: Write-Output $object | Out-Host
Note, however, that this outputs directly and invariably to the console only and the object is then not part of the script's data output (the objects written to the success output stream, the stream with index 1).
In other words: if you try to assign the script's output to a variable or send its output to another command in a pipeline, that object won't be there.
See below for why Out-Host is preferable to Write-Host, and why it's better to avoid Write-Host in most situations.
To apply the technique ad hoc to a given script's output as a whole, so as to make sure you see all output objects, use:
./some-script.ps1 | % { $_ | Out-String } # % is the built-in alias of ForEach-Object
Note that here too you could use Out-Host, but the advantage of using Out-String is that it still allows you to capture the for-display representation in a file, if desired.
Here's a simple helper function (filter) that you can put in your $PROFILE:
# Once defined, you can use: ./some-script.ps1 | Format-Each
Filter Format-Each { $_ | Out-String }
PetSerAl's suggestion - ./some-script.ps1 | Format-List - works in principle too, but it switches the output from the usual table-style output to list-style output, with each property listed on its own line, which may be undesired.
Conversely, however, Format-Each, if an output object is (implicitly) table-formatted, prints a header for each object.
Why Write-Output doesn't help:
Write-Output doesn't help, because it writes to where output objects go by default anyway: the aforementioned success output stream, where data should go.
If the output stream's objets aren't redirected or captured in some form, they are sent to the host by default (typically, the console), where the automatic formatting is applied.
Also, use of Write-Output is rarely necessary, because simply not capturing or redirecting a command or expression implicitly writes to the success stream; another way of putting it:
Write-Output is implied.
Therefore, the following two statements are equivalent:
Write-Output $object # write $object to the success output stream
$object # same; *implicitly* writes $object to the success output stream
Why use of Write-Host is ill-advised, both here and often in general:
Assuming you do know the implications of using Write-Host in general - see below - you could use it for the problem at hand, but Write-Host applies simple .ToString() formatting to its input, which does not give you the nice, multi-line formatting that PowerShell applies by default.
Thus, Out-Host (and Out-String) were used above, because they do apply the same, friendly formatting.
Contrast the following two statements, which print a hash-table ([hashtable]) literal:
# (Optional) use of Write-Output: The friendly, multi-line default formatting is used.
# ... | Out-Host and ... | Out-String would print the same.
PS> Write-Output #{ foo = 1; bar = 'baz' }
Name Value
---- -----
bar baz
foo 1
# Write-Host: The hashtable's *entries* are *individually* stringified
# and the result prints straight to the console.
PS> Write-Host #{ foo = 1; bar = 'baz' }
System.Collections.DictionaryEntry System.Collections.DictionaryEntry
Write-Host did two things here, which resulted in near-useless output:
The [hashtable] instance's entries were enumerated and each entry was individually stringified.
The .ToString() stringification of hash-table entries (key-value pairs) is System.Collections.DictionaryEntry, i.e., simply the type name of the instance.
The primary reasons for avoiding Write-Host in general are:
It outputs directly to the host (console) rather than to PowerShell's success output stream.
As a beginner, you may mistakenly think that Write-Host is for writing results (data), but it isn't.
In bypassing PowerShell's system of streams, Write-Host output cannot be redirected - that is, it can neither be suppressed nor captured (in a file or variable).
That said, starting with PowerShell v5.0, you can now redirect its output via the newly introduced information stream (number 6; e.g., ./some-script.ps1 6>write-host-output.txt); however, that stream is more properly used with the new Write-Information cmdlet.
By contrast, Out-Host output still cannot be redirected.
That leaves just the following legitimate uses of Write-Host:
Creating end-user prompts and colored for-display-only representations:
Your script may have interactive prompts that solicit information from the user; using Write-Host - optionally with coloring via the -ForegroundColor and -BackgroundColor parameters - is appropriate, given that prompt strings should not become part of the script's output and users also provide their input via the host (typically via Read-Host).
Similarly, you can use Write-Host with selective coloring to explicitly create friendlier for-display-only representations.
Quick prototyping: If you want a quick-and-dirty way to write status/diagnostic information directly to the console without interfering with a script's data output.
However, it is generally better to use Write-Verbose and Write-Debug in such cases.
Generally speaking the expectation is for script/functions to return a single "type" of object, often with many instances. For example, Get-Process returns a load of processes, but they all have the same fields. As you'll have seen from the tutorials, etc. you can then pass the output of Get-Process along a pipeline and process the data with subsequent cmdlets.
In your case you are returning two different types of object (i.e. with two different sets of properties). PS outputs the first object, but not the second one (which doesn't match the first) as you discovered. If you were to add extra properties to the first object that match those used in the second one, then you'd see both objects.
Write-Host doesn't care about this sort of stuff. The push-back against using this is mainly to do with (1) it being a lazy way to give feedback about script progress, i.e. use Write-Verbose or Write-Debug instead and (2) it being imperfect when it comes to passing objects along a pipeline, etc.
Clarification on point (2), helpfully raised in the comments to this answer:
Write-Host is not just imperfect with respect to the pipeline /
redirection / output capturing, you simply cannot use it for that in
PSv4 and earlier, and in PSv5+ you have to awkwardly use 6>; also,
Write-Host stringifies with .ToString(), which often produces
unhelpful representations
If your script is really just meant to print data to the console then go ahead and Write-Host.
Alternatively, you can return multiple objects from a script or function. Using return or Write-Output, just return object objects comma-separated. For example:
Test-WriteOutput.ps1
$object1 = [PSCustomObject]#{
OSBuild = "910ef01.2.8779"
OSVersion = "CustomOS 3"
BIOSSerial = "A5FT-XT2H-5A4B-X9NM"
}
$object2 = [PSCustomObject]#{
Site = "SQL site"
Server= "SQL Server"
Database="SQL Database"
}
Write-Output $object1,$object2
The run the script, assigning the output into two variables:
$a,$b = .\Test-WriteOutput.ps1
You'll see that $a is $object1 and $b is $object2.
use write-host, write-output is for pipeline (and by default on console after clear)
Related
I've learnt from this thread how to append to an array of arrays. However, I've observed the weirdest behaviour ever. It seems to append stdout too! Suppose I want to append to an array of arrays, but I want to echo debug messages in the loop. Consider the following function.
function WTF {
$Result = #()
$A = 1,2
$B = 11,22
$A,$B | % {
Write-Output "Appending..."
$Result += , $_
}
return $Result
}
Now if you do $Thing = WTF, you might think you get a $Thing that is an array of two arrays: $(1,2) and $(11,22). But that's not the case. If you type $Thing in the terminal, you actually get:
Appending...
Appending...
1
2
11
22
That is, $Thing[0] is the string "Appending...", $Thing[1] is the string "Appending...", $Thing[2] is the array #(1,2), and $Thing[3] is the array #(11,22). Nevermind that they seem to be in a weird order, which is a whole other can of worms I don't want to get into, but why does the echoed string "Appending..." get appended to the result??? This is so extremely weird. How do I stop it from doing that?
EDIT
Oh wait, upon further experimenting, the following simpler function might be more revealing:
function WTF {
$Result = #()
1,2 | % {
Write-Output "LOL"
}
return $Result
Now if you do $Thing = WTF, then $Thing becomes an array of length 2, containing the string "LOL" twice. Clearly there is something fundamental about Powershell loops and or Write-Output that I'm not understanding.
ANOTHER EDIT!!!
In fact, the following even simpler function does the same thing:
function WTF {
1,2 | % {
Write-Output "LOL"
}
}
Maybe I just shouldn't be using Write-Output, but should use Write-Information or Write-Debug instead.
PowerShell doesn't have return values, it has a success output stream (the analog of stdout in traditional shells).
The PowerShell pipeline serves as the conduit for this stream, both when capturing command output in a variable and when sending it to another command via |, the pipeline operator
Any statement - including multiple ones, possibly in a loop - inside a function or script can write to that stream, typically implicitly - by not capturing, suppressing, or redirecting output - or explicitly, with Write-Output, although its use is rarely needed - see this answer for more information.
Output is sent instantly to the success output stream, as it is being produced - even before the script or function exits.
return exists for flow control, independently of PowerShell's output behavior; as syntactic sugar you may also use it to write to the output stream; that is, return $Result is syntactic sugar for: $Result; return, with $Result by itself producing implicit output, and return exiting the scope.
To avoid polluting the success output stream - intended for data output only - with status messages, write to one of the other available output streams - see the conceptual about_Redirection help topic.
Write-Verbose is a good choice, because it is silent by default, and can be activated on demand, either via $VerbosePreference = 'Continue', or, on a per-call basis, with the common -Verbose parameter, assuming the script or function is an advanced one.
Write-Host, by contrast, unconditionally prints information to the host (display), and allows control over formatting, notably coloring.
Outputting a collection (array) from a script or function enumerates it. That is, instead of sending the collection itself, as a whole, its elements are sent to PowerShell's pipeline, one by one, a process called streaming.
PowerShell commands generally expect streaming output, and may not behave as expected if you output a collection as a whole.
When you do want to output a collection as a whole (which may sometimes be necessary for performance reasons), wrap them in a transient aux. single-element array, using the unary form of ,, the array constructor operator: , $Result
A conceptually clearer (but less efficient) alternative is to use Write-Output -NoEnumerate
See this answer for more information.
Therefore, the PowerShell idiomatic reformulation of your function is:
function WTF {
# Even though no parameters are declared,
# these two lines are needed to activate support for the -Verbose switch,
# which implicitly make the function an *advanced* one.
# Even without it, you could still control verbose output via
# the $VerbosePreference preference variable.
[CmdletBinding()]
param()
$A = 1,2
$B = 11,22
# Use Write-Verbose for status information.
# It is silent by default, but if you pass -Verbose
# on invocation or set $VerbosePreference = 'Continue', you'll
# see the message.
Write-Verbose 'Appending...'
# Construct an array containing the input arrays as elements
# and output it, which *enumerates* it, meaning that each
# input array is output by itself, as a whole.
# If you need to output the nested array *as a whole*, use
# , ($A, $B)
$A, $B
}
Sample invocation:
PS> $nestedArray = WTF -Verbose
VERBOSE: Appending...
Note:
Only the success output (stream 1) was captured in variable $nestedArray, whereas the verbose output (stream 4) was passsed through to the display.
$nestedArray ends up as an array - even though $A and $B were in effect streamed separately - because PowerShell automatically collects multiple streamed objects in an array, which is always of type [object[]].
A notable pitfall is that if there's only one output object, it is assigned as-is, not wrapped in an array.
To ensure that a command's output is is always an array, even in the case of single-object output:
You can enclose the command in #(...), the array-subexpression operator
$txtFiles = #(Get-ChildItem *.txt)
In the case of a variable assignment, you can also use a type constraint with [array] (effectively the same as [object[]]):
[array] $txtFiles = Get-ChildItem *.txt
However, note that if a given single output object itself is a collection (which, as discussed, is unusual), no extra array wrapper is created by the commands above, and if that collection is of a type other than an array, it will be converted to a regular [object[]] array.
Additionally, if #(...) is applied to a strongly typed array (e.g., [int[]] (1, 2), it is in effect enumerated and rebuilt as an [object[]] array; by contrast, the [array] type constraint (cast) preserves such an array as-is.
As for your specific observations and questions:
I've learnt from this thread how to append to an array of arrays
While using += in order to incrementally build an array is convenient, it is also inefficient, because a new array must be constructed every time - see this answer for how to construct arrays efficiently, and this answer for how to use an efficiently extensible list type as an alternative.
Nevermind that they seem to be in a weird order, which is a whole other can of worms I don't want to get into
Output to the pipeline - whether implicit or explicit with Write-Output is instantly sent to the success output stream.
Thus, your Write-Output output came first, given that you didn't output the $Result array until later, via return.
How do I stop it from doing that?
As discussed, don't use Write-Output for status messages.
The documentation for ForEach-object says "When you use the InputObject parameter with ForEach-Object, instead of piping command results to ForEach-Object, the InputObject value is treated as a single object." This behavior can easily be observed directly:
PS C:\WINDOWS\system32> ForEach-Object -InputObject #(1, 2, 3) {write-host $_}
1 2 3
This seems weird. What is the point of a "ForEach" if there is no "each" to do "for" on? Is there really no way to get ForEach-object to act directly on the individual elements of an array without piping? if not, it seems that ForEach-Object with InputObject is completely useless. Is there something I don't understand about that?
In the case of ForEach-Object, or any cmdlet designed to operate on a collection, using the -InputObject as a direct parameter doesn't make sense because the cmdlet is designed to operate on a collection, which needs to be unrolled and processed one element at a time. However, I would also not call the parameter "useless" because it still needs to be defined so it can be set to allow input via the pipeline.
Why is it this way?
-InputObject is, by convention, a generic parameter name for what should be considered to be pipeline input. It's a parameter with [Parameter(ValueFromPipeline = $true)] set to it, and as such is better suited to take input from the pipeline rather passed as a direct argument. The main drawback of passing it in as a direct argument is that the collection is not guaranteed to be unwrapped, and may exhibit some other behavior that may not be intended. From the about_pipelines page linked to above:
When you pipe multiple objects to a command, PowerShell sends the objects to the command one at a time. When you use a command parameter, the objects are sent as a single array object. This minor difference has significant consequences.
To explain the above quote in different words, passing in a collection (e.g. an array or a list) through the pipeline will automatically unroll the collection and pass it to the next command in the pipeline one at a time. The cmdlet does not unroll -InputObject itself, the data is delivered one element at a time. This is why you might see problems when passing a collection to the -InputObject parameter directly - because the cmdlet is probably not designed to unroll a collection itself, it expects each collection element to be handed to it in a piecemeal fashion.
Consider the following example:
# Array of hashes with a common key
$myHash = #{name = 'Alex'}, #{name='Bob'}, #{name = 'Sarah'}
# This works as intended
$myHash | Where-Object { $_.name -match 'alex' }
The above code outputs the following as expected:
Name Value
---- -----
name Alex
But if you pass the hash as InputArgument directly like this:
Where-Object -InputObject $myHash { $_.name -match 'alex' }
It returns the whole collection, because -InputObject was never unrolled as it is when passed in via the pipeline, but in this context $_.name -match 'alex' still returns true. In other words, when providing a collection as a direct parameter to -InputObject, it's treated as a single object rather than executing each time against each element in the collection. This can also give the appearance of working as expected when checking for a false condition against that data set:
Where-Object -InputObject $myHash { $_.name -match 'frodo' }
which ends up returning nothing, because even in this context frodo is not the value of any of the name keys in the collection of hashes.
In short, if something expects the input to be passed in as pipeline input, it's usually, if not always, a safer bet to do it that way, especially when passing in a collection. However, if you are working with a non-collection, then there is likely no issue if you opt to use the -InputObject parameter directly.
Bender the Greatest's helpful answer explains the current behavior well.
For the vast majority of cmdlets, direct use of the -InputObject parameter is indeed pointless and the parameter should be considered an implementation detail whose sole purpose is to facilitate pipeline input.
There are exceptions, however, such as the Get-Member cmdlet, where direct use of -InputObject allows you to inspect the type of a collection itself, whereas providing that collection via the pipeline would report information about its elements' types.
Given how things currently work, it is quite unfortunate that the -InputObject features so prominently in most cmdlets' help topics, alongside "real" parameters, and does not frame the issue with enough clarity (as of this writing): The description should clearly convey the message "Don't use this parameter directly, use the pipeline instead".
This GitHub issue provides an categorized overview of which cmdlets process direct -InputObject arguments how.
Taking a step back:
While technically a breaking change, it would make sense for -InputObject parameters (or any pipeline-binding parameter) to by default accept and enumerate collections even when they're passed by direct argument rather than via the pipeline, in a manner that is transparent to the implementing command.
This would put direct-argument input on par with pipeline input, with the added benefit of the former resulting in faster processing of already-in-memory collections.
I'm trying to write a small powershell script that does a few things
1) Parses Inbox items in my outlook
2) Searches for a RegEx string
3) Dumps the line that matches the RegEx string into a CSV
I can't get #3 to work. It definitely runs for about 10 minutes, but the resulting csv is empty.
Here's a snippet of what I want it to look for:
Account Name: Jbond
I tried just slapping a "Write-Host $variable" in various parts to see what was happening, but all I get is "System.____comobject". I can't find a solution online to just convert this into plain text.
Add-Type -Assembly "Microsoft.Office.Interop.Outlook"
$Outlook = New-Object -ComObject Outlook.Application
$namespace = $Outlook.GetNameSpace("MAPI")
$inbox = $namespace.GetDefaultFolder([Microsoft.Office.Interop.Outlook.OlDefaultFolders]::olFolderInbox)
$RE = [RegEx]'(?sm)Account Name\s*:\s*(?<AccName>.*?)$.*'
$Data = ForEach ($item in $inbox.items){
$resultText = $item.item.Value
Write-Host $resultText
if ($item.from -like "email#email.org"){
if ($item.body -match $RE){
[PSCustomObject]#{
AccName = $Matches.AccName
}
}
}
}
$Data
$Data | Export-CSv '.\data.csv' -NoTypeInformation
tl;dr:
Use:
$variable | Out-Host # or: Out-Host InputObject $variable
rather than
Write-Host $variable
to get meaningful output formatting.
Background information and debugging tips below.
Try a combination of the following approaches:
Use interactive debugging:
Use GUI editor Visual Studio Code with the PowerShell extension to place breakpoints in your code and inspect variable values interactively. (In Windows PowerShell you can also use the ISE, but it is obsolescent.)
Less conveniently, use the *-PSBreakpoint cmdlets to manage breakpoints that are hit when you run your script in a console (terminal) window. A simple alternative is to add Wait-Debugger statements to your script, which, when hit, break unconditionally.
Produce helpful debugging output:
Generally, use Write-Debug rather than Write-Host, which has two advantages:
You can leave Write-Debug calls in your code for on-demand debugging at any time:
They are silent by default, and only produce output on an opt-in basis, via (temporarily) setting $DebugPreference = 'Continue' beforehand or passing the -Debug switch (if your script / function is an advanced one, though note that in Windows PowerShell this will present a prompt whenever a Write-Debug call is hit).
You do, however, pay a performance penalty for leaving Write-Debug calls in your code.
Debug output is clearly marked as such, colored and prefixed with DEBUG:.
The problem you experienced with Write-Host is that all Write-* cmdlets perform simple .ToString() stringification of their arguments, which often results in unhelpful representations, such as System.____comobject in your case.
To get the same rich output formatting you would get in the console, use the following technique, which uses Out-String as a helper command:
$variable | Out-String | Write-Debug
If you want to control the view (list vs. table vs. wide vs. custom) explicitly, insert a Format-* call; e.g.:
$variable | Format-List | Out-String | Write-Debug
It is generally only the standard Out-* cmdlets that use PowerShell's output formatting system.
A quick-and-dirty alternative to Write-Debug is to use Out-Host rather than Write-Host - e.g., for quick insertion of debugging commands that you'll remove later; Out-Host itself performs the usual output formatting, which simplifies matters:
# Default for-display formatting
$variable | Out-Host # or: Out-Host -InputObject $variable
# Explicit formatting
$variable | Format-List | Out-Host
Caveat: Aside from formatting, another important difference between Write-Host and Out-Host is that in PSv5+ only Write-Host writes to the host via the information stream (stream number 6), whereas Out-Host truly writes directly to the host, which means that its output cannot be captured with redirections such as 6> or *> - see about_Redirection.
Currently my log function spits out the information in a single column and is hard to read. Is there a way to make it split up into different columns which each (DisplayName, PoolName, PoolSnapshot, and DesktopSVIVmSnapshot) and its respective information is put correctly?
function log ([string]$entry) {
Write-Output $entry | Out-File -Append "C:\logs\SNAPSHOT.csv"
}
Add-PSSnapin Quest.ActiveRoles.ADManagement
$date = Get-Date -Format "MM-dd-yyyy"
$time = Get-Date -Format "hh:mm:sstt"
# begin log
log $(Get-Date)
log "The below Desktops are not using the correct Snapshot."
if (#($DesktopExceptions).Count -lt 1) {
Write-Output "All desktops in $pool are currently using the correct snapshots." |
Out-File -Append "C:\logs\SNAPSHOT.csv"
} else {
Write-Output $DesktopExceptions |
Select-Object DisplayName,PoolName,PoolSnapshot,DesktopSVIVmSnapshot |
sort DisplayName |
Out-File -Append "C:\logs\SNAPSHOT.csv"
}
log $(Get-Date)
09/11/2017 12:16:17
DisplayName PoolName PoolSnapshot DesktopSVIVmSnapshot
----------- -------- ------------ --------------------
xxxc-13v xxxc-xxx /8-11-2017/09-07-2017 /8-11-2017
xxxc-15v xxxc-xxx /8-11-2017/09-07-2017 /8-11-2017
xxxc-1v xxxc-xxx /8-11-2017/09-07-2017 /8-11-2017
xxxc-20v xxxc-xxx /8-11-2017/09-07-2017 /8-11-2017
Note: I removed parts of the log for in the hopes to not make the post long.
CSV files require uniform lines: a header line with column names, followed by data lines containing column values.
By writing the output from Get-Date first - a single date/time string - followed by another single-string output, followed by multi-column output from your $DesktopExceptions | Select-Object ... call, you're by definition not creating a valid CSV file.
If you still want to create such a file:
log (Get-Date) # With a single command, you don't need $(...) - (...) will do.
log "The below Desktops are not using the correct Snapshot."
If ($DesktopExceptions) # a non-empty array / non-$null object
{
log ($DesktopExceptions |
Select-Object DisplayName,PoolName,PoolSnapshot,DesktopSVIVmSnapshot |
Sort-Object DisplayName |
ConvertTo-Csv -NoTypeInformation)
}
Else
{
log "All desktops in $pool are currently using the correct snapshots."
}
log (Get-Date)
By defining your log() function's parameter as type [string], you're effectively forcing stringification of whatever object you pass to it. This stringification is the same you get when you embed a variable reference or command inside "..." (string expansion / interpolation) - but it is not the same as what you get by default, when you print to the console.
Out-File, by contrast, does result in the same output you get when printing to the console, which, however, is a format for human consumption, not for machine parsing (as CSV is, for instance).
To get CSV-formatted output, you must either use Export-Csv - to write directly to a file - or ConvertTo-Csv- to get a string representation.
Also note that there's typically no reason to use Write-Output explicitly - any command / expression's output that is not explicitly assigned to a variable / redirected (to a file or $null) is implicitly sent to PowerShell's [success] output stream; e.g., Write-Output Get-Date is the same as just Get-Date.
It looks like you're just writing an object, and taking the default PowerShell formatter behavior.
A better thing to do is make your log only responsible for one thing - writing messages to a file (no formatting). Here's an example of what you might try:
function Write-LogMessage {
[CmdletBinding()]
param (
[Parameter(Mandatory = $true, HelpMessage = "The text-content to write to the log file.",
ValueFromPipeline = $true)]
[string]$Text
)
Process {
Write-Host -ForegroundColor Green $Text
}
}
Set-Alias log Write-LogMessage
Note: This example writes directly to the PowerShell console, but you would in practice need to direct output to a file (using Out-File or one of the redirection operators - see Get-Help about_Operators).
To use it, you would write something like this:
"This is a message that would be written" | Write-LogMessage
For your specific example, you could just format the message inline, and pipe it:
Write-Output $DesktopExceptions | Select-Object DisplayName,PoolName,PoolSnapshot,DesktopSVIVmSnapshot | sort DisplayName | ForEach-Object { "{0}: Host = {1}, Pool = {2}, Pool SN = {3}, SVIV Snapshot = {4}" -f (Get-Date), $_.DisplayName, $_.PoolName, $_.PoolSnapshot, $_.DesktopSVIVmSnapshot } | log
Note that you don't need the log statement: just add formatting before piping to the Out-File cmdlet, and you'll get what you're after.
Edit: The OP asked in the original post how to format columns (tabular output). To achieve this, you can use either the ConvertTo-Csv or Export-Csv cmdlets (generally, you would use the -NoTypeInformation switch parameter with these commands, to avoid the first line of the output being a type definition). An example of this is:
$DesktopExceptions | Select-Object DisplayName,PoolName,PoolSnapshot,DesktopSVIVmSnapshot | sort DisplayName | Export-Csv C:\Temp\Datum.csv -NoTypeInformation
As pointed out in another answer, using Write-Output is not required, because PowerShell automatically writes all output to the output stream unless otherwise directed (using file redirection, a redirection operator, or the Out-Null cmdlet).
Please read my answer as part solution and part advice.
The "problem" with PowerShell is that it doesn't capture only the output of your code. It will capture output from other scripts, modules and executables. In other words, any attempt to make logging behave like it's generated by e.g. C# with NLOG, has an inherent problem.
I looked into this subject myself for a complex continuous delivery pipeline I'm building. I understood that a structured log will not be 100% possible and therefore I accepted the purpose of PowerShell transcription (Start-Transcript). But still I wanted to avoid creating functions like Write-Log and if possible provide an enhanced output for all code that uses Write-Debug, Write-Verbose functionality.
I ended up creating XWrite PowerShell module which works very well, even to my own suprize. I use it because it enhances the produced trace message by the caller's name (cmdlet or script) and a timestamp. The caller's name helps a lot with troubleshooting and the timestamp I use to implicitly benchmark. here are a couple of example
DEBUG: Test-MyXWrite.ps1: Hello
DEBUG: Script: Test-MyXWrite.ps1: 20170804: 10:57:27.845: Hello
There are some limitations though. Any binary's code trace output will not be enhanced. Also if a cmllet refers explicitly to the Write-* using their full namespace it will not work. To capture line by line all trace and output requires some very deep into the .net types of PowerShell implementation hooking. There is a guy who has done this, but I don't want to get influence the PowerShell process's behavior that aggresively. And at this moment I believe that to be the role of the transcription.
If you like the idea, install the module from XWrite
At some point, I would like to extend the module with a redirection to telemetry services, but I've still not decided I want to do that, because I will not capture the above mentioned exceptions and other executable. It will just offer me visible progress as the script is executing.
I'm learning PowerShell and a vast number of articles I read strongly discourages the use of write-host telling me it's "bad practice" and almost always, the output can be displayed in another way.
So, I'm taking the advice and try to avoid use of write-host. One suggestion I found was to use write-output instead. As far as I understand, this puts everything in a pipeline, and the output is executed at the end of the script (?).
However, I have problems outputting what I want. This example demonstrates the issue:
$properties = #{'OSBuild'="910ef01.2.8779";
'OSVersion'="CustomOS 3";
'BIOSSerial'="A5FT-XT2H-5A4B-X9NM"}
$object = New-Object –TypeName PSObject –Prop $properties
Write-output $object
$properties = #{'Site'="SQL site";
'Server'="SQL Server";
'Database'="SQL Database"}
$object = New-Object –TypeName PSObject –Prop $properties
Write-Output $object
This way I get a nice output of the first object displaying the OS data, but the second object containing the SQL data is never displayed. I've tried renaming the variable names, and a bunch of other different stuff, but no luck.
While troubleshooting this problem, I found similar problems with suggestions to just replace write-output with write-host. This gets me very confused. Why are some people strongly discouraging write-host, while other people encourage it?
And how exactly do I output these two objects in a fashionably manner? I do not fully understand the pipeline mechanism of write-output.
Just to clarify: the problem is only a display problem:
When outputting to the console, if the first object is table-formatted (if Format-Table is applied, which happens implicitly in your case), the display columns are locked in based on that first object's properties.
Since your second output object shares no properties with the first one, it contributes nothing to the table display and is therefore effectively invisible.
By contrast, if you programmatically process the script's output - assign it to a variable or send its output through the pipeline to another command - both objects will be there.
See Charlie Joynt's answer for a helpful example of assigning the two output objects to separate variables.
The simplest solution to the display problem is to explicitly format for display each input object individually - see below.
For a given single object inside a script, you can force formatted to-display (to-host) output with Out-Host:
$object | Out-Host # same as: Write-Output $object | Out-Host
Note, however, that this outputs directly and invariably to the console only and the object is then not part of the script's data output (the objects written to the success output stream, the stream with index 1).
In other words: if you try to assign the script's output to a variable or send its output to another command in a pipeline, that object won't be there.
See below for why Out-Host is preferable to Write-Host, and why it's better to avoid Write-Host in most situations.
To apply the technique ad hoc to a given script's output as a whole, so as to make sure you see all output objects, use:
./some-script.ps1 | % { $_ | Out-String } # % is the built-in alias of ForEach-Object
Note that here too you could use Out-Host, but the advantage of using Out-String is that it still allows you to capture the for-display representation in a file, if desired.
Here's a simple helper function (filter) that you can put in your $PROFILE:
# Once defined, you can use: ./some-script.ps1 | Format-Each
Filter Format-Each { $_ | Out-String }
PetSerAl's suggestion - ./some-script.ps1 | Format-List - works in principle too, but it switches the output from the usual table-style output to list-style output, with each property listed on its own line, which may be undesired.
Conversely, however, Format-Each, if an output object is (implicitly) table-formatted, prints a header for each object.
Why Write-Output doesn't help:
Write-Output doesn't help, because it writes to where output objects go by default anyway: the aforementioned success output stream, where data should go.
If the output stream's objets aren't redirected or captured in some form, they are sent to the host by default (typically, the console), where the automatic formatting is applied.
Also, use of Write-Output is rarely necessary, because simply not capturing or redirecting a command or expression implicitly writes to the success stream; another way of putting it:
Write-Output is implied.
Therefore, the following two statements are equivalent:
Write-Output $object # write $object to the success output stream
$object # same; *implicitly* writes $object to the success output stream
Why use of Write-Host is ill-advised, both here and often in general:
Assuming you do know the implications of using Write-Host in general - see below - you could use it for the problem at hand, but Write-Host applies simple .ToString() formatting to its input, which does not give you the nice, multi-line formatting that PowerShell applies by default.
Thus, Out-Host (and Out-String) were used above, because they do apply the same, friendly formatting.
Contrast the following two statements, which print a hash-table ([hashtable]) literal:
# (Optional) use of Write-Output: The friendly, multi-line default formatting is used.
# ... | Out-Host and ... | Out-String would print the same.
PS> Write-Output #{ foo = 1; bar = 'baz' }
Name Value
---- -----
bar baz
foo 1
# Write-Host: The hashtable's *entries* are *individually* stringified
# and the result prints straight to the console.
PS> Write-Host #{ foo = 1; bar = 'baz' }
System.Collections.DictionaryEntry System.Collections.DictionaryEntry
Write-Host did two things here, which resulted in near-useless output:
The [hashtable] instance's entries were enumerated and each entry was individually stringified.
The .ToString() stringification of hash-table entries (key-value pairs) is System.Collections.DictionaryEntry, i.e., simply the type name of the instance.
The primary reasons for avoiding Write-Host in general are:
It outputs directly to the host (console) rather than to PowerShell's success output stream.
As a beginner, you may mistakenly think that Write-Host is for writing results (data), but it isn't.
In bypassing PowerShell's system of streams, Write-Host output cannot be redirected - that is, it can neither be suppressed nor captured (in a file or variable).
That said, starting with PowerShell v5.0, you can now redirect its output via the newly introduced information stream (number 6; e.g., ./some-script.ps1 6>write-host-output.txt); however, that stream is more properly used with the new Write-Information cmdlet.
By contrast, Out-Host output still cannot be redirected.
That leaves just the following legitimate uses of Write-Host:
Creating end-user prompts and colored for-display-only representations:
Your script may have interactive prompts that solicit information from the user; using Write-Host - optionally with coloring via the -ForegroundColor and -BackgroundColor parameters - is appropriate, given that prompt strings should not become part of the script's output and users also provide their input via the host (typically via Read-Host).
Similarly, you can use Write-Host with selective coloring to explicitly create friendlier for-display-only representations.
Quick prototyping: If you want a quick-and-dirty way to write status/diagnostic information directly to the console without interfering with a script's data output.
However, it is generally better to use Write-Verbose and Write-Debug in such cases.
Generally speaking the expectation is for script/functions to return a single "type" of object, often with many instances. For example, Get-Process returns a load of processes, but they all have the same fields. As you'll have seen from the tutorials, etc. you can then pass the output of Get-Process along a pipeline and process the data with subsequent cmdlets.
In your case you are returning two different types of object (i.e. with two different sets of properties). PS outputs the first object, but not the second one (which doesn't match the first) as you discovered. If you were to add extra properties to the first object that match those used in the second one, then you'd see both objects.
Write-Host doesn't care about this sort of stuff. The push-back against using this is mainly to do with (1) it being a lazy way to give feedback about script progress, i.e. use Write-Verbose or Write-Debug instead and (2) it being imperfect when it comes to passing objects along a pipeline, etc.
Clarification on point (2), helpfully raised in the comments to this answer:
Write-Host is not just imperfect with respect to the pipeline /
redirection / output capturing, you simply cannot use it for that in
PSv4 and earlier, and in PSv5+ you have to awkwardly use 6>; also,
Write-Host stringifies with .ToString(), which often produces
unhelpful representations
If your script is really just meant to print data to the console then go ahead and Write-Host.
Alternatively, you can return multiple objects from a script or function. Using return or Write-Output, just return object objects comma-separated. For example:
Test-WriteOutput.ps1
$object1 = [PSCustomObject]#{
OSBuild = "910ef01.2.8779"
OSVersion = "CustomOS 3"
BIOSSerial = "A5FT-XT2H-5A4B-X9NM"
}
$object2 = [PSCustomObject]#{
Site = "SQL site"
Server= "SQL Server"
Database="SQL Database"
}
Write-Output $object1,$object2
The run the script, assigning the output into two variables:
$a,$b = .\Test-WriteOutput.ps1
You'll see that $a is $object1 and $b is $object2.
use write-host, write-output is for pipeline (and by default on console after clear)