Remove ECS0200 suppression and update WellKnownTypes to not trigger ECS0600 #236
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant updates to various classes in the Moq.Analyzers namespace, including Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Coverage summary from CodacySee diff coverage on Codacy
Coverage variation details
Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: Diff coverage details
Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: See your quality gate settings Change summary preferencesCodacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range comments (4)
src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1)
Line range hint
19-26: Add null checks to prevent NullReferenceException.The methods
IsInMoqNamespaceandIsInMockTypecould throw NullReferenceException if the input symbol or its properties are null.Add defensive null checks:
private static bool IsInMoqNamespace(ISymbol symbol) - => symbol.ContainingNamespace.Name.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(ContainingNamespace.AsSpan()); + => symbol?.ContainingNamespace?.Name is string name + && name.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(ContainingNamespace.AsSpan()); private static bool IsInMockType(ISymbol symbol) - => symbol.ContainingType.Name.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(ContainingType.AsSpan()); + => symbol?.ContainingType?.Name is string name + && name.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(ContainingType.AsSpan());src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (3)
Line range hint
76-82: Fix potential ArgumentOutOfRangeException in IsFirstArgumentMockBehavior.The method accesses
argumentList?.Arguments[0]without checking if the Arguments collection is empty, which could throw an exception.Apply this fix:
private static bool IsFirstArgumentMockBehavior(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context, ArgumentListSyntax? argumentList) { + if (argumentList?.Arguments.Count == 0) + { + return false; + } ExpressionSyntax? expression = argumentList?.Arguments[0].Expression; return IsExpressionMockBehavior(context, expression); }
Line range hint
437-441: Add null check before accessing arguments in VerifyMockAttempt.The code uses the null-coalescing operator but still accesses
argumentsarray without checking if it's empty whenhasMockBehavioris true.Apply this fix:
if (hasMockBehavior && arguments.Length > 0 && IsFirstArgumentMockBehavior(context, argumentList)) { // They passed a mock behavior as the first argument; ignore as Moq swallows it - arguments = arguments.RemoveAt(0); + arguments = arguments.Length > 0 ? arguments.RemoveAt(0) : arguments; }
Line range hint
334-424: Consider simplifying complex constructor matching logic.The
AnyConstructorsFoundmethod is quite complex and could be simplified to improve maintainability and reduce the risk of bugs.Consider breaking down the method into smaller, focused methods:
ValidateArgumentCountValidateFixedParametersValidateParamsParametersThis would make the code easier to test and maintain while reducing the cognitive complexity.
Example structure:
private static bool AnyConstructorsFound( IMethodSymbol[] constructors, ArgumentSyntax[] arguments, SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context) { return constructors.Any(constructor => ValidateArgumentCount(constructor, arguments) && ValidateFixedParameters(constructor, arguments, context) && ValidateParamsParameters(constructor, arguments, context)); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Common/WellKnownTypeNames.cs (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (3)
src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Common/WellKnownTypeNames.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
🔇 Additional comments (5)
src/Common/WellKnownTypeNames.cs (3)
5-8: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)Consider the cross-assembly versioning implications of const to static readonly change.
While the change from
consttostatic readonlyaddresses the ECS0200 rule, it has important implications:
- Constants are embedded at compile-time in dependent assemblies
- Static readonly fields require runtime lookup
- This change makes the values more flexible but could affect cross-assembly version compatibility
Let's check for cross-assembly dependencies:
9-12: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionEnsure initialization safety for interpolated strings.
The interpolated strings depend on other fields being properly initialized. While the C# runtime guarantees static field initialization order within a class, consider making these more robust:
Consider this alternative approach:
- internal static readonly string MoqMock = $"{Moq}.{Mock}"; - internal static readonly string MoqMock1 = $"{MoqMock}`1"; - internal static readonly string MoqBehavior = $"{Moq}.{MockBehavior}"; - internal static readonly string MoqRepository = $"{Moq}.MockRepository"; + internal static readonly string MoqMock = string.Join(".", Moq, Mock); + internal static readonly string MoqMock1 = string.Concat(MoqMock, "`1"); + internal static readonly string MoqBehavior = string.Join(".", Moq, MockBehavior); + internal static readonly string MoqRepository = string.Join(".", Moq, "MockRepository");This approach:
- Is more explicit about string concatenation
- Provides better null-handling semantics
- Maintains readability while being more robust
Likely invalid or redundant comment.
13-15: Verify method name constants match Moq's public API.These method names are critical for the analyzer to correctly identify Moq API usage. Let's verify they match the actual API:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify these method names in the codebase.
Based on the search results, I can now generate a final response.
Method name constants correctly match Moq's API
The search results confirm these method names are actively used in Moq's API:
As: Verified throughAsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzer.csand documentation showing.As()is used for implementing multiple interfacesOf: Verified throughSetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.csreferencingMock.Of()methodCreate: While seen mostly in utility contexts, it appears to be a valid part of the API based on the analyzer implementationsThe constants in
WellKnownTypeNames.cscorrectly represent these method names used throughout the codebase for analyzer matching purposes.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for these method names in Moq's public API ast-grep --pattern 'public $_ As($$$) { $$$ }' ast-grep --pattern 'public static $_ Create($$$) { $$$ }' ast-grep --pattern 'public static $_ Of($$$) { $$$ }'Length of output: 164
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for these method names using ripgrep for broader coverage echo "Searching for 'As' method:" rg "\.As\(" -A 2 -B 2 echo -e "\nSearching for 'Create' method:" rg "\.Create\(" -A 2 -B 2 echo -e "\nSearching for 'Of' method:" rg "\.Of\(" -A 2 -B 2 # Also check test files as they often demonstrate API usage echo -e "\nSearching in test files:" fd -e test.cs -X rg "\.As\(|\.Create\(|\.Of\("Length of output: 10975
src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1)
15-15: LGTM! The field rename maintains consistency.The update from
WellKnownTypeNames.MockNametoWellKnownTypeNames.Mockaligns with the changes in theWellKnownTypeNamesclass.src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (1)
293-293: LGTM! Verify usage of WellKnownTypeNames.Mock across the codebase.The update to use
WellKnownTypeNames.Mockis correct and maintains consistency with the type name changes.Let's verify that this is the only occurrence that needs updating:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
All usages of
WellKnownTypeNames.Mockare consistent across the codebaseThe verification shows that all references to
WellKnownTypeNames.Mockare being used correctly in their respective contexts:
- Constructor argument analysis in
ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs- Method descriptor base configuration in
Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.csNo instances of outdated "MockName" were found, and all existing usages follow the same pattern using
WellKnownTypeNames.Mock.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for any remaining occurrences of the old mock type name # that might need to be updated for consistency # Search for any remaining occurrences of "MockName" that might need updating rg "MockName" --type cs # Search for all usages of Mock to verify consistency rg "WellKnownTypeNames\.Mock" --type csLength of output: 970
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (2)
289-289: LGTM! The WellKnownTypeNames.Mock usage is correct.The change properly aligns with the PR objective to update WellKnownTypes and maintains the correct string comparison behavior.
213-219: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionExtract string comparisons to improve maintainability.
The string comparison logic could be extracted to a helper method to improve maintainability and reduce duplication. This aligns with the DRY principle and makes the code more readable.
+ private static bool IsMethodName(string value, string expectedName) => + string.Equals(value, expectedName, StringComparison.Ordinal); - if (string.Equals(genericNameSyntaxIdentifierValue, WellKnownTypeNames.Create, StringComparison.Ordinal)) + if (IsMethodName(genericNameSyntaxIdentifierValue, WellKnownTypeNames.Create)) { AnalyzeInvocation(context, invocationExpressionSyntax, WellKnownTypeNames.MockFactory, true, true); } - else if (string.Equals(genericNameSyntaxIdentifierValue, WellKnownTypeNames.Of, StringComparison.Ordinal)) + else if (IsMethodName(genericNameSyntaxIdentifierValue, WellKnownTypeNames.Of)) { AnalyzeInvocation(context, invocationExpressionSyntax, WellKnownTypeNames.Mock, false, true); }
rjmurillo
added
housekeeping
analyzers
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range comments (2)
src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (2)
Line range hint
22-26: Add null checks and optimize string comparisons.The string comparison methods lack null checks and make multiple string-to-span conversions. Consider:
- Adding null checks for parameters
- Caching the span conversions of static fields
+ // Cache the spans for better performance + private static readonly ReadOnlySpan<char> ContainingNamespaceSpan => ContainingNamespace.AsSpan(); + private static readonly ReadOnlySpan<char> ContainingTypeSpan => ContainingType.AsSpan(); - private static bool IsInMoqNamespace(ISymbol symbol) => - symbol.ContainingNamespace.Name.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(ContainingNamespace.AsSpan()); + private static bool IsInMoqNamespace(ISymbol symbol) + { + if (symbol?.ContainingNamespace?.Name is null) + return false; + return symbol.ContainingNamespace.Name.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(ContainingNamespaceSpan); + } - private static bool IsInMockType(ISymbol symbol) => - symbol.ContainingType.Name.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(ContainingType.AsSpan()); + private static bool IsInMockType(ISymbol symbol) + { + if (symbol?.ContainingType?.Name is null) + return false; + return symbol.ContainingType.Name.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(ContainingTypeSpan); + }
Line range hint
20-20: Add null check in IsFastMatch method.The IsFastMatch method could throw NullReferenceException if memberAccessSyntax is null.
- protected static bool IsFastMatch(MemberAccessExpressionSyntax memberAccessSyntax, ReadOnlySpan<char> methodName) => - memberAccessSyntax.Name.Identifier.Text.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(methodName); + protected static bool IsFastMatch(MemberAccessExpressionSyntax memberAccessSyntax, ReadOnlySpan<char> methodName) + { + if (memberAccessSyntax?.Name?.Identifier.Text is null) + return false; + return memberAccessSyntax.Name.Identifier.Text.AsSpan().SequenceEqual(methodName); + }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (3 hunks)
- src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Common/WellKnownTypeNames.cs (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (3)
src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Common/WellKnownTypeNames.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
🪛 GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs
[failure] 217-217: src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs#L217
Add the missing 'else' clause with either the appropriate action or a suitable comment as to why no action is taken.
🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/Common/WellKnownTypeNames.cs (3)
5-6: LGTM! Clear separation of namespace and symbol name concerns.The split into separate fields with explicit string literals better represents their distinct purposes and addresses the previous nameof() concerns.
7-9: LGTM! Appropriate use of nameof() for type names.The use of nameof() is correct here as these represent actual type names, and the static readonly modifier provides the desired flexibility while maintaining immutability.
14-16: Verify the method name usage across the codebase.The method names look correct, but let's verify they are used consistently for method symbol matching.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response as we have sufficient evidence about how these method names are used in the codebase.
Method names are correctly used for symbol matching across analyzers
The method names
As,Create, andOfare consistently used for method symbol matching in various analyzers:
Asis used inAsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzerfor identifying generic method symbolsOfis used in bothSetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzerandConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzerfor method identificationCreateis used inConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzerfor comparing method namesThe usage aligns with their intended purpose as method symbol identifiers, and they are properly referenced using the
WellKnownTypeNamesclass.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check how these method names are used in the codebase # to ensure they are used for method symbol matching echo "Checking usage of As, Create, and Of methods:" rg -A 5 "WellKnownTypeNames\.(As|Create|Of)"Length of output: 3062
src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1)
Line range hint
14-26: Verify the impact of null checks across the codebase.Let's verify how these methods are used across the codebase to ensure the added null checks won't cause unexpected behavior.
src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (2)
208-211: Simplify the null check pattern.This pattern can be more concise by combining it with the return statement.
Line range hint
289-300: LGTM! Type name reference updates are consistent.The updates to use
WellKnownTypeNames.MockandWellKnownTypeNames.MoqSymbolNameare consistent with the PR objectives and maintain the same behavior.
![codeclimate[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/9403?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 8b16498 and detected 1 issue on this pull request. Here's the issue category breakdown:
View more on Code Climate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 9
🧹 Outside diff range comments (2)
src/Common/CompilationExtensions.cs (1)
Line range hint
26-38: Document the behavior when Moq types aren't found.The XML documentation should clarify what happens when Moq isn't referenced in the compilation.
/// <summary> /// Get the Moq.MockRepository, Moq.Mock and Moq.Mock`1 type symbols (if part of the compilation). /// </summary> /// <param name="compilation">The <see cref="Compilation"/> to inspect.</param> /// <returns> /// <see cref="INamedTypeSymbol"/>s for the Moq.Mock symbols that are part of the compilation. - /// An empty array if none (never <see langword="null"/>). + /// An empty array if none of the types are found, which can happen when: + /// - Moq isn't referenced in the compilation + /// - Only some of the types are found due to version mismatches + /// The method never returns <see langword="null"/>. /// </returns>src/Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (1)
Line range hint
91-102: Potential bug: Analyzer might miss valid behavior specifications.The analyzer only checks for behavior specified through field references (e.g.,
MockBehavior.Strict). It might miss cases where the behavior is specified through:
- Local variables
- Properties
- Method calls
- Constants
This could lead to false positives where the analyzer reports a warning even though the behavior is explicitly set.
Consider updating the argument checking logic to handle more cases. Here's a suggested approach:
foreach (IArgumentOperation argument in creationOperation.Arguments) { - if (argument.Value is IFieldReferenceOperation fieldReferenceOperation) + if (argument.Value.Type?.IsInstanceOf(mockBehaviorSymbol) == true) { - ISymbol field = fieldReferenceOperation.Member; - if (field.ContainingType.IsInstanceOf(mockBehaviorSymbol) && IsExplicitBehavior(field.Name)) + // If it's a field reference, check the name + if (argument.Value is IFieldReferenceOperation fieldRef && + IsExplicitBehavior(fieldRef.Member.Name)) { return; } + // If it's a property reference or method call, consider it explicit + if (argument.Value is IPropertyReferenceOperation or IMethodReferenceOperation) + { + return; + } } }Apply the same changes to the
AnalyzeInvocationmethod.Also applies to: 121-132
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
- src/Analyzers/AsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (6 hunks)
- src/Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Common/CompilationExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Common/WellKnownMoqNames.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Common/WellKnownTypeNames.cs (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/Common/WellKnownTypeNames.cs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (6)
src/Analyzers/AsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzer.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Common/CompilationExtensions.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Common/WellKnownMoqNames.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
📓 Learnings (2)
src/Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (1)
Learnt from: MattKotsenas PR: rjmurillo/moq.analyzers#226 File: src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs:45-49 Timestamp: 2024-10-15T20:25:09.079Z Learning: In this codebase, `WellKnownTypeNames` is included via global usings.src/Common/WellKnownMoqNames.cs (1)
Learnt from: MattKotsenas PR: rjmurillo/moq.analyzers#226 File: src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs:45-49 Timestamp: 2024-10-15T20:25:09.079Z Learning: In this codebase, `WellKnownTypeNames` is included via global usings.
🔇 Additional comments (9)
src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs (1)
14-15: Verify complete migration from WellKnownTypeNames.Let's ensure all references have been updated from WellKnownTypeNames to WellKnownMoqNames.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the usage of WellKnownMoqNames to ensure the migration is complete and consistent.
Based on the comprehensive results, I can now provide the final response:
Migration from WellKnownTypeNames to WellKnownMoqNames is complete and consistent
The verification shows that:
- No references to the old
WellKnownTypeNamesremain in the codebase- All usages consistently use
WellKnownMoqNameswith proper member access- The migration appears to be part of a well-executed refactoring, with
WellKnownMoqNamesbeing used consistently across multiple files including analyzers and common utilities🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify complete migration from WellKnownTypeNames to WellKnownMoqNames # Test 1: Check for any remaining references to WellKnownTypeNames echo "Checking for remaining WellKnownTypeNames references..." rg "WellKnownTypeNames" -l # Test 2: Verify consistent usage of new WellKnownMoqNames echo "Verifying WellKnownMoqNames usage..." rg "WellKnownMoqNames\.(MoqNamespace|MockTypeName)" -lLength of output: 382
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's examine the actual usage in both files to verify the consistency echo "Checking usage in MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs:" rg "WellKnownMoqNames" src/Common/MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs -B 1 -A 1 echo -e "\nChecking usage in ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs:" rg "WellKnownMoqNames" src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs -B 1 -A 1 # Let's also check if there are any other similar "WellKnown" types in use echo -e "\nChecking for other WellKnown types:" rg "WellKnown\w+Names?" --type csLength of output: 5200
src/Common/CompilationExtensions.cs (1)
37-37: Verify WellKnownMoqNames constants exist in the codebase.Let's ensure the new constants are properly defined and accessible.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the WellKnownMoqNames class to ensure it's properly defined with all necessary components.
WellKnownMoqNames constants are properly defined and used correctly
The verification shows that:
- The
WellKnownMoqNamesclass is well-structured and properly defined- All required constants (
FullyQualifiedMoqMockTypeName,FullyQualifiedMoqMock1TypeName,FullyQualifiedMoqRepositoryTypeName) are correctly defined using string interpolation- The base components (
MoqNamespaceandMockTypeName) are properly initialized- The class is well-documented with XML comments explaining each constant's purpose
The usage in
CompilationExtensions.csis correct and type-safe. No issues were found.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence and definition of WellKnownMoqNames constants # Test 1: Find the WellKnownMoqNames class definition echo "Searching for WellKnownMoqNames class definition..." ast-grep --pattern 'class WellKnownMoqNames { $$$ }' # Test 2: Find the specific constant definitions echo "Searching for the specific constants..." rg "FullyQualifiedMoqMockTypeName|FullyQualifiedMoqMock1TypeName|FullyQualifiedMoqRepositoryTypeName" -A 1Length of output: 1174
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the full content of WellKnownMoqNames.cs to verify the class structure and dependencies echo "Full content of WellKnownMoqNames.cs:" cat src/Common/WellKnownMoqNames.cs # Check if MoqNamespace and MockTypeName are defined echo -e "\nSearching for MoqNamespace and MockTypeName definitions:" rg "MoqNamespace|MockTypeName" src/Common/WellKnownMoqNames.csLength of output: 3655
src/Common/WellKnownMoqNames.cs (3)
1-7: LGTM! Well-structured class declaration with clear documentation.The class is appropriately scoped as
internal staticand follows good documentation practices.
57-74: LGTM! Well-documented method names.The method name constants are clearly documented and follow the same pattern as the rest of the class.
1-74: Verify migration from WellKnownTypeNames.Let's ensure all references to the old
WellKnownTypeNamesclass have been updated to useWellKnownMoqNames.✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response:
Migration from WellKnownTypeNames is complete
The verification shows that:
- No references to the old
WellKnownTypeNamesclass remain in the codebase- The new
WellKnownMoqNamesclass is properly used across multiple files including:
- ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs
- SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs
- AsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzer.cs
- CompilationExtensions.cs
- MoqMethodDescriptorBase.cs
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining references to WellKnownTypeNames # Test: Search for WellKnownTypeNames references echo "Checking for remaining references to WellKnownTypeNames..." rg "WellKnownTypeNames" # Test: Verify all files using the new WellKnownMoqNames echo "Verifying usage of WellKnownMoqNames..." rg "WellKnownMoqNames"Length of output: 3040
src/Analyzers/AsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzer.cs (2)
47-47: LGTM: Member name update is correct.The change from
WellKnownTypeNames.AstoWellKnownMoqNames.AsMethodNamealigns with the PR objectives to update naming conventions.
46-50: Verify thread safety of member lookup.The code enables concurrent execution but performs member lookups that could potentially be affected by concurrent compilation changes.
Let's verify the thread safety implications:
src/Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (2)
54-54: LGTM! Verify the method name.The change to use
WellKnownMoqNames.OfMethodNameis correct and maintains proper filtering for generic methods.Let's verify the method name is correctly defined:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the method name for Mock.Of() # Expected: Should find the constant definition in WellKnownMoqNames # Test: Search for the constant definition ast-grep --pattern 'public const string OfMethodName = $_'
45-45: LGTM! Verify the fully qualified type name.The change to use
WellKnownMoqNames.FullyQualifiedMoqBehaviorTypeNameis correct and maintains proper null checking.Let's verify the type name is correctly defined:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the type name definition.
Let me check the specific content of the WellKnownMoqNames.cs file to verify the constant definition.
The type name change is correctly implemented and verified
The change to use
WellKnownMoqNames.FullyQualifiedMoqBehaviorTypeNameis correct. The constant is properly defined inWellKnownMoqNames.csas$"{MoqNamespace}.{MockBehaviorTypeName}"which resolves to"Moq.MockBehavior", the correct fully qualified name for the Moq behavior type.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the fully qualified type name for MockBehavior # Expected: Should find the constant definition in WellKnownMoqNames # Test: Search for the constant definition ast-grep --pattern 'public const string FullyQualifiedMoqBehaviorTypeName = $_'Length of output: 154
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for files that might contain the WellKnownMoqNames class fd "WellKnownMoqNames.cs" # Search for any file containing MoqBehavior type name definition rg -l "MoqBehavior" # Get content of any file containing WellKnownMoqNames rg -A 5 "WellKnownMoqNames"Length of output: 8275
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the content of WellKnownMoqNames.cs cat src/Common/WellKnownMoqNames.csLength of output: 2828
Effective C# rules 0200 and 0600 have violations in
src/Common/WellKnownTypeNames.cs. This change updates the members inWellKnownTypestype and their usagesRelated to rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers#73, see item for discussion
WellKnownTypesto avoid triggering ECS0600src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.csto move from switch, which requires compile time constants, to a more traditional if/elseWellKnownTypeNamestype (nowWellKnownMoqNames) with improved names and added documentation