Autofix: 9a5e92b9-ab42-4423-b516-743341fe6c1e #281
Conversation
|
Latta seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account. You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it. |
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Analyzer as ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer
participant Context as SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext
participant Argument as ArgumentSyntax
participant FactoryMethod as Func<T>
Context->>Analyzer: AnalyzeCompilation()
Analyzer->>Context: Register actions for ObjectCreationExpression
Analyzer->>Context: Register actions for InvocationExpression
Context->>Argument: Get first argument
alt Is Factory Method?
Argument->>Analyzer: IsFactoryMethodArgument()
Analyzer-->>Context: Bypass verification
else Not a Factory Method
Analyzer->>Context: VerifyClassMockAttempt()
end
Analyzer-->>Context: Generate diagnostics
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 (
|
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 3017509 and detected 0 issues on this pull request. View more on Code Climate. |
![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
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs(4 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)
414-418:
Remove duplicate method declaration of VerifyClassMockAttempt
There is a duplicate declaration of the VerifyClassMockAttempt method. This will cause a compilation error due to multiple definitions of the same method.
Apply this diff to remove the duplicate declaration:
private static void VerifyClassMockAttempt(
SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context,
ITypeSymbol mockedClass,
ArgumentListSyntax? argumentList,
ArgumentSyntax[] arguments)
- private static void VerifyClassMockAttempt(
- SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context,
- ITypeSymbol mockedClass,
- ArgumentListSyntax? argumentList,
- ArgumentSyntax[] arguments)
{
// Method body...
}Likely invalid or redundant comment.
145-146:
Fix misplaced braces in AnalyzeCompilation method
The opening brace { for the AnalyzeCompilation method is misplaced. The method body should start immediately after the method signature. The registration of syntax node actions should be inside the method body. This causes a syntax error.
Apply this diff to correct the method structure:
private static void AnalyzeCompilation(CompilationStartAnalysisContext context)
+{
context.CancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
if (context.Compilation.Options.IsAnalyzerSuppressed(InterfaceMustNotHaveConstructorParameters)
&& context.Compilation.Options.IsAnalyzerSuppressed(ClassMustHaveMatchingConstructor))
{
return;
}
MoqKnownSymbols knownSymbols = new(context.Compilation);
// We're interested in the few ways to create mocks:
// - new Mock<T>()
// - Mock.Of<T>()
// - MockRepository.Create<T>()
//
// Ensure Moq is referenced in the compilation
if (!knownSymbols.IsMockReferenced())
{
return;
}
+ // Register syntax node actions
context.RegisterSyntaxNodeAction(context => AnalyzeObjectCreation(context, knownSymbols), SyntaxKind.ObjectCreationExpression);
context.RegisterSyntaxNodeAction(context => AnalyzeInvocationExpression(context, knownSymbols), SyntaxKind.InvocationExpression);
-{
// Rest of the method...
}Likely invalid or redundant comment.
| { | ||
| IMethodSymbol[] constructors = mockedClass | ||
| .GetMembers() | ||
| .OfType<IMethodSymbol>() | ||
| .Where(methodSymbol => methodSymbol.IsConstructor()) | ||
| .ToArray(); | ||
|
|
||
| // Bail out early if there are no arguments on constructors or no constructors at all | ||
| (bool IsEmpty, Location Location) constructorIsEmpty = ConstructorIsEmpty(constructors, argumentList, context); | ||
| if (constructorIsEmpty.IsEmpty) | ||
| { | ||
| Diagnostic diagnostic = constructorIsEmpty.Location.CreateDiagnostic(ClassMustHaveMatchingConstructor, argumentList); | ||
| context.ReportDiagnostic(diagnostic); | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // We have constructors, now we need to check if the arguments match any of them | ||
| if (!AnyConstructorsFound(constructors, arguments, context)) | ||
| { | ||
| Diagnostic diagnostic = constructorIsEmpty.Location.CreateDiagnostic(ClassMustHaveMatchingConstructor, argumentList); | ||
| context.ReportDiagnostic(diagnostic); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove duplicated code starting from line 465
The code from line 465 onwards appears to be a duplication of earlier code within the VerifyClassMockAttempt method. This duplication is unnecessary and may cause confusion or compilation errors.
Apply this diff to remove the duplicated code:
-{
- IMethodSymbol[] constructors = mockedClass
- .GetMembers()
- .OfType<IMethodSymbol>()
- .Where(methodSymbol => methodSymbol.IsConstructor())
- .ToArray();
-
- // Bail out early if there are no arguments on constructors or no constructors at all
- (bool IsEmpty, Location Location) constructorIsEmpty = ConstructorIsEmpty(constructors, argumentList, context);
- if (constructorIsEmpty.IsEmpty)
- {
- Diagnostic diagnostic = constructorIsEmpty.Location.CreateDiagnostic(ClassMustHaveMatchingConstructor, argumentList);
- context.ReportDiagnostic(diagnostic);
- return;
- }
-
- // We have constructors, now we need to check if the arguments match any of them
- if (!AnyConstructorsFound(constructors, arguments, context))
- {
- Diagnostic diagnostic = constructorIsEmpty.Location.CreateDiagnostic(ClassMustHaveMatchingConstructor, argumentList);
- context.ReportDiagnostic(diagnostic);
- }
-}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| private static bool IsFactoryMethodArgument(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context, ArgumentSyntax argument) | ||
| { | ||
| var symbolInfo = context.SemanticModel.GetSymbolInfo(argument.Expression); | ||
| if (symbolInfo.Symbol is IMethodSymbol methodSymbol) | ||
| { | ||
| var containingType = methodSymbol.ContainingType; | ||
| return containingType != null && containingType.Name == "Func" && containingType.TypeArguments.Length == 1; | ||
| } | ||
| return false; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the logic in IsFactoryMethodArgument to accurately detect Func<T>
The IsFactoryMethodArgument method may not correctly identify if an argument is a Func<T>. Currently, it checks if symbolInfo.Symbol is an IMethodSymbol, which may not be accurate. Instead, it should determine if the type of the argument expression is Func<T>.
Apply this diff to fix the logic:
private static bool IsFactoryMethodArgument(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context, ArgumentSyntax argument)
{
- var symbolInfo = context.SemanticModel.GetSymbolInfo(argument.Expression);
- if (symbolInfo.Symbol is IMethodSymbol methodSymbol)
+ var typeInfo = context.SemanticModel.GetTypeInfo(argument.Expression);
+ if (typeInfo.Type is INamedTypeSymbol typeSymbol)
{
- var containingType = methodSymbol.ContainingType;
- return containingType != null && containingType.Name == "Func" && containingType.TypeArguments.Length == 1;
+ return typeSymbol.Name == "Func" && typeSymbol.Arity == 1;
}
return false;
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| private static bool IsFactoryMethodArgument(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context, ArgumentSyntax argument) | |
| { | |
| var symbolInfo = context.SemanticModel.GetSymbolInfo(argument.Expression); | |
| if (symbolInfo.Symbol is IMethodSymbol methodSymbol) | |
| { | |
| var containingType = methodSymbol.ContainingType; | |
| return containingType != null && containingType.Name == "Func" && containingType.TypeArguments.Length == 1; | |
| } | |
| return false; | |
| } | |
| private static bool IsFactoryMethodArgument(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context, ArgumentSyntax argument) | |
| { | |
| var typeInfo = context.SemanticModel.GetTypeInfo(argument.Expression); | |
| if (typeInfo.Type is INamedTypeSymbol typeSymbol) | |
| { | |
| return typeSymbol.Name == "Func" && typeSymbol.Arity == 1; | |
| } | |
| return false; | |
| } |
Modified the VerifyClassMockAttempt method to check for Func constructor arguments and added a new method IsFactoryMethodArgument to determine if an argument is a Func.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes