Refactor to support RS1038 #216
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough## Walkthrough
The pull request introduces multiple changes across several files, primarily focusing on updating package versions and adding a new project, `Moq.CodeFixes`, to the solution. The `Directory.Packages.props` file is modified to update the version of `Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces` and introduce `Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp`. The solution file `Moq.Analyzers.sln` is updated to include the new project, which is referenced in the `Moq.Analyzers.csproj`. Additionally, references to the new project are added in benchmark and test projects.
## Changes
| File | Change Summary |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| `Directory.Packages.props` | - Updated `Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces` version from `4.3.1` to `4.8.0`.<br>- Added `Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp` version `4.3.1`.<br>- Retained `SonarAnalyzer.CSharp` version `9.32.0.97167`. |
| `Moq.Analyzers.sln` | - Added new project `Moq.CodeFixes` with path `src\Moq.CodeFixes\Moq.CodeFixes.csproj` and GUID `{8E99C15C-E80A-49E5-988C-1B5071CE775F}`. |
| `src/Moq.Analyzers/Moq.Analyzers.csproj` | - Replaced `Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces` reference with `Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp`.<br>- Updated output assembly inclusion pattern.<br>- Added `ProjectReference` to `Moq.CodeFixes.csproj`. |
| `src/Moq.CodeFixes/Moq.CodeFixes.csproj` | - Created new project file defining a .NET project targeting .NET Standard 2.0 with a reference to `Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces`. |
| `src/Moq.CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.cs` | - Changed namespace from `Moq.Analyzers` to `Moq.CodeFixes`.<br>- Updated summary comment and added null checks in methods. |
| `src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs` | - Enhanced readability of existing methods without altering signatures. |
| `tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks.csproj` | - Added project reference to `Moq.CodeFixes`. |
| `tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Moq.Analyzers.Test.csproj` | - Added project reference to `Moq.CodeFixes`. |
| `tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs` | - Updated type alias for `Verifier` to point to the new namespace.<br>- Corrected callback signatures in test cases. |
| `tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/PackageTests.Baseline#contents.verified.txt` | - New file added: `Moq.CodeFixes.dll` in `analyzers/dotnet/cs/`. |
## Possibly related PRs
- **#202**: The changes in this PR also involve modifications to the `Directory.Packages.props` file, specifically related to package version management, which aligns with the changes made in the main PR regarding the `Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp` package.📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🧰 Additional context used🔇 Additional comments (3)
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 (
|
rjmurillo
added
dependencies
![codeclimate[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/9403?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
src/Moq.CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range comments (3)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Moq.Analyzers.Test.csproj (1)
Line range hint
15-17: Consider reviewing the Release configuration optimization setting.The Release configuration has
Optimizeset tofalse, which is unusual for a Release build. Typically, Release builds have optimizations enabled to improve performance. Consider reviewing this setting to ensure it aligns with your project's requirements and performance expectations.src/Moq.CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.cs (1)
Line range hint
70-70: Consider replacingDebug.Assertwith a runtime check.While the
Debug.AssertforsetupMethodInvocationis helpful during development, it may be stripped out in release builds. Consider replacing it with a runtime check to ensure the same level of protection in production code.Here's a suggested modification:
- Debug.Assert(setupMethodInvocation != null, nameof(setupMethodInvocation) + " != null"); + if (setupMethodInvocation == null) + { + return document; + }This change ensures that the method handles the case where
setupMethodInvocationis null, even in production environments.src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (1)
Line range hint
24-30: LGTM: Improved conciseness in GetAllMatchingMockedMethodSymbolsFromSetupMethodInvocationThe changes in this method improve code conciseness and readability through the use of pattern matching. The logic remains correct and is now expressed more elegantly.
Consider using a discard (
_) instead ofsetupMethodInvocation?in the pattern matching to further simplify the code:LambdaExpressionSyntax? setupLambdaArgument = _ is InvocationExpressionSyntax { ArgumentList.Arguments: [{ Expression: LambdaExpressionSyntax lambda }] } ? lambda : null;This change would make the intent clearer and reduce the number of null checks.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
- Directory.Packages.props (1 hunks)
- Moq.Analyzers.sln (2 hunks)
- build/targets/codeanalysis/Packages.props (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/Moq.Analyzers.csproj (2 hunks)
- src/Moq.CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.CodeFixes/Moq.CodeFixes.csproj (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks.csproj (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Moq.Analyzers.Test.csproj (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.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/Moq.CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.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 (19)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks.csproj (1)
11-11: LGTM! Verify the new project reference.The addition of the Moq.CodeFixes project reference is consistent with the PR objectives and the overall refactoring effort. This change allows the benchmark project to include the new code fixes in its performance tests, which is a good practice.
To ensure the project reference is correct and the file exists, run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Verification Successful!
The
Moq.CodeFixes.csprojfile exists in the correct location and is properly included in the solution file. The new project reference is correctly set up as intended.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the Moq.CodeFixes project file # Test: Check if the Moq.CodeFixes.csproj file exists if [ -f "src/Moq.CodeFixes/Moq.CodeFixes.csproj" ]; then echo "Moq.CodeFixes.csproj file found." else echo "Error: Moq.CodeFixes.csproj file not found in the expected location." fi # Test: Check if Moq.CodeFixes.csproj is included in the solution file grep -q "Moq.CodeFixes.csproj" Moq.Analyzers.sln && echo "Moq.CodeFixes.csproj is included in the solution file." || echo "Warning: Moq.CodeFixes.csproj is not found in the solution file."Length of output: 294
build/targets/codeanalysis/Packages.props (2)
5-5: Addition of Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp package aligns with PR objective.The inclusion of
Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharpversion 4.8.0 is a positive change that supports the PR objective of refactoring to support RS1038. This package is essential for C# code analysis and will enable the use of Roslyn-based analyzers.
8-8: Verify the necessity of retaining SonarAnalyzer.CSharp.The SonarAnalyzer.CSharp package (version 9.32.0.97167) has been retained, despite being previously marked for removal. While this analyzer contributes to overall code quality, it's worth confirming if it's still required for the project, especially in light of the refactoring for RS1038.
Could you please clarify the decision to keep this analyzer? If it's still needed, consider adding a comment in the file explaining its retention for future reference.
src/Moq.CodeFixes/Moq.CodeFixes.csproj (2)
9-16: LGTM! Source file linking looks good.The ItemGroup for source file compilation is well-structured. Linking relevant files from the Moq.Analyzers project allows for code sharing while maintaining project separation. This approach is suitable for the Moq.CodeFixes project.
18-20: LGTM! Package reference is appropriate.The package reference to Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces is suitable for a code analysis project. The use of PrivateAssets="all" is a good practice, ensuring that the package isn't exposed to projects that reference this one.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Moq.Analyzers.Test.csproj (1)
29-29: LGTM: New project reference enables testing of code fixes.The addition of the
Moq.CodeFixesproject reference is appropriate and aligns with the PR objectives. This change allows the test project to access and potentially test the code fixes implemented in theMoq.CodeFixesproject, which is a good practice for ensuring the correctness of the code fixes.Directory.Packages.props (1)
19-19: Verify compatibility with target environments after package update.The update of
Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspacesfrom version 4.3.1 to 4.8.0 is a significant change that may impact SDK compatibility. While staying up-to-date is generally good, please ensure this update aligns with your target environments and doesn't introduce breaking changes.Consider the following:
- Check if this update is compatible with other dependencies in your project.
- Verify that this version works with your target .NET SDK versions.
- Review the changelog for any breaking changes or new features that might affect your codebase.
- Ensure this update supports the Visual Studio versions your users might be using, as mentioned in the comment above.
To help verify the impact of this change, you can run the following script:
This script will help identify other related packages and usages that might be affected by this update.
src/Moq.Analyzers/Moq.Analyzers.csproj (3)
Line range hint
1-44: Summary: Refactoring changes align with PR objectives.The changes in this file, including updating the CodeAnalysis package reference and adding a new project reference to Moq.CodeFixes, appear to be part of the larger refactoring effort to support RS1038 as mentioned in the PR objectives.
These changes should improve the project structure and maintainability. However, please ensure that:
- All functionality remains intact after changing the CodeAnalysis package reference.
- The new project structure with Moq.CodeFixes is correctly set up and integrated.
- All tests pass and the project builds successfully with these changes.
If you need any assistance with verifying these points or addressing any issues that may arise, please don't hesitate to ask.
41-43: LGTM: New project reference added for code fixes.The addition of a reference to
Moq.CodeFixes.csprojis a good separation of concerns, moving code fix functionality into a separate project. This should improve modularity and maintainability.To ensure the new project structure is correct and functional, please:
- Verify that the
Moq.CodeFixes.csprojfile exists in the expected location.- Check that any code fix implementations have been moved to the new project.
- Ensure that the build succeeds with this new project reference.
Run the following script to verify the project structure:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the new project structure # Test 1: Check if Moq.CodeFixes.csproj exists fd -e csproj Moq.CodeFixes.csproj src # Test 2: Check for code fix implementations in the new project rg --type csharp 'class.*:.*CodeFixProvider' src/Moq.CodeFixes # Test 3: Verify that Moq.Analyzers.csproj is referencing Moq.CodeFixes.csproj rg '<ProjectReference.*Moq\.CodeFixes\.csproj' src/Moq.Analyzers/Moq.Analyzers.csproj
27-27: Verify the impact of changing the CodeAnalysis package dependency.The package reference has been changed from
Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.WorkspacestoMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp. This change removes the Workspaces dependency, which might affect the analyzer's capabilities.Please ensure that:
- This change doesn't break any existing functionality, especially if any Workspace-related APIs were being used.
- The analyzer still functions correctly with this reduced dependency.
- All tests pass after this change.
Run the following script to check for any remaining usages of Workspace-related APIs:
If any results are found, please review those usages and ensure they are still compatible with the new package reference.
✅ Verification successful
Package dependency change verified successfully.
No usage of Workspace-related APIs was found in
src/Moq.Analyzers. The removal ofMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspacesdoes not impact the analyzer's functionality.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining usages of Workspace-related APIs # Test: Search for Workspace-related API usages rg --type csharp 'using.*Microsoft\.CodeAnalysis\..*Workspace' src/Moq.Analyzers rg --type csharp 'Workspace|Solution|Project|Document' src/Moq.AnalyzersLength of output: 465
Moq.Analyzers.sln (3)
12-13: LGTM: New project "Moq.CodeFixes" added correctlyThe new project "Moq.CodeFixes" has been properly added to the solution with the correct format, consistent project path, and a unique GUID.
32-35: LGTM: Build configurations for "Moq.CodeFixes" set up correctlyThe Debug and Release build configurations for the new "Moq.CodeFixes" project have been properly added and are consistent with other projects in the solution.
12-13: Summary: New project "Moq.CodeFixes" successfully integratedThe changes to
Moq.Analyzers.slnsuccessfully integrate the new "Moq.CodeFixes" project into the solution. The project entry and build configurations are correctly set up and consistent with the existing structure. These modifications align with the PR objective of refactoring to support RS1038 by introducing a new project for code fixes.Also applies to: 32-35
src/Moq.CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.cs (3)
1-1: LGTM: New using directives are appropriate.The added using directives for
System.Collections.Immutable,Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp, andMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Syntaxare necessary for the changes made in the code. They enable the use of immutable collections and C# syntax features, which are utilized in the updated implementation.Also applies to: 7-8
Line range hint
32-35: LGTM: Improved null checking inRegisterCodeFixesAsync.The addition of a null check for
rootand early return if it's null improves the robustness of the code. This change prevents potential null reference exceptions and aligns with best practices for defensive programming.
Line range hint
57-61: LGTM: Improved null checking and parent node validation.The additions of null checks for
semanticModeland the more specific parent node check foroldParametersimprove the robustness and accuracy of the code. These changes help prevent potential null reference exceptions and ensure that the method operates on the correct syntax nodes.Also applies to: 65-69
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (3)
2-3: LGTM: Appropriate using directives addedThe addition of these using directives for Microsoft.CodeAnalysis and Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Syntax is appropriate and necessary for working with the Roslyn API in this context.
Line range hint
16-22: LGTM: Improved clarity in FindSetupMethodFromCallbackInvocationThe changes in this method improve code clarity and robustness without altering its functionality. The explicit checks for InvocationExpressionSyntax and MemberAccessExpressionSyntax make the code easier to understand and maintain.
Line range hint
1-105: Overall assessment: Positive improvements with no apparent issuesThe changes in this file are primarily focused on improving code clarity, conciseness, and robustness. The additions of using directives and the refinements in method implementations contribute to better maintainability without introducing new functionality or risks.
Key points:
- Appropriate using directives added for working with the Roslyn API.
- Improved clarity in the
FindSetupMethodFromCallbackInvocationmethod.- Enhanced conciseness in the
GetAllMatchingMockedMethodSymbolsFromSetupMethodInvocationmethod through pattern matching.These changes align well with the provided coding guidelines and do not introduce any apparent bugs, edge cases, or concurrency issues. The code maintains its original functionality while becoming more readable and maintainable.
…ose to version at the same time
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range comments (3)
build/targets/codeanalysis/Packages.props (1)
Line range hint
1-14: Consider explaining minor changes in PR description.While the formatting change in this file is acceptable and improves consistency, it doesn't appear to be directly related to the main objectives of this PR (refactoring to support RS1038 and creating a new Moq.CodeFixes project).
To maintain clarity and help reviewers understand the full scope of changes:
- Consider mentioning such minor, unrelated changes in the PR description.
- If this change was unintentional or not necessary for the main objectives, consider reverting it to keep the PR focused on its primary goals.
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (1)
Line range hint
1-124: Overall, the changes improve code quality. Consider creating a follow-up task.The modifications in this file enhance code readability and maintainability without introducing new bugs or issues. However, there's an outstanding TODO comment that should be addressed.
Consider creating a follow-up task to:
- Research and implement the best approach for symbol checks in the
IsCallbackOrReturnSymbolmethod.- Review the entire file for any other potential optimizations or improvements, especially in methods with suppressed warnings like
GetAllMatchingSymbols<T>.tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs (1)
Line range hint
214-250: Suggestion: Consider adding more edge cases to ConversionTestDataWhile the
ConversionTestDatamethod hasn't been changed in this PR, it's worth noting that it covers important conversion scenarios, including implicit and explicit conversions. However, to further improve the robustness of the tests, consider adding the following edge cases:
- A test case for conversion from a derived type to a base type.
- A test case for conversion between interfaces (if applicable in your use case).
- A test case for conversion involving nullable value types.
These additional cases would help ensure that the
CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixhandles a wider range of conversion scenarios correctly.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- Directory.Packages.props (1 hunks)
- build/targets/codeanalysis/Packages.props (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/Moq.Analyzers.csproj (2 hunks)
- src/Moq.CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.CodeFixes/Moq.CodeFixes.csproj (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/PackageTests.Baseline#contents.verified.txt (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (3)
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.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/Moq.CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.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.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.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 (17)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/PackageTests.Baseline#contents.verified.txt (1)
8-8: LGTM! The addition ofMoq.CodeFixes.dllaligns with the PR objectives.The inclusion of
Moq.CodeFixes.dllin theanalyzers/dotnet/cs/directory is consistent with the PR's goal of creating a new project to encapsulate code fixes. This change supports the refactoring effort to comply with the RS1038 rule by separating the code fixes from the main analyzer project.src/Moq.CodeFixes/Moq.CodeFixes.csproj (4)
9-16: LGTM! Appropriate file linking for CodeFixes project.The ItemGroup correctly links necessary files from the Moq.Analyzers project. This approach ensures code sharing between the two projects while maintaining separate concerns.
18-20: LGTM! Correct PackageReference configuration.The PackageReference to Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces is correctly defined with PrivateAssets="all", which is appropriate for limiting the exposure of the package.
1-26: LGTM! Project structure aligns with PR objectives.The Moq.CodeFixes project is correctly structured to support RS1038:
- It's separated from Moq.Analyzers, addressing the RS1038 analyzer trigger.
- It correctly links necessary files from Moq.Analyzers.
- It includes the required Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces package reference.
This structure effectively encapsulates the code fixes while maintaining shared functionality with Moq.Analyzers.
3-7: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)Fix indentation in PropertyGroup for consistency.
The PropertyGroup content is correct, but the indentation is inconsistent. Use 4 spaces for indentation throughout the file for better readability and consistency with C# conventions.
<PropertyGroup> - <RootNamespace>Moq.CodeFixes</RootNamespace> - <AssemblyName>Moq.CodeFixes</AssemblyName> - <TargetFramework>netstandard2.0</TargetFramework> + <RootNamespace>Moq.CodeFixes</RootNamespace> + <AssemblyName>Moq.CodeFixes</AssemblyName> + <TargetFramework>netstandard2.0</TargetFramework> </PropertyGroup>Likely invalid or redundant comment.
Directory.Packages.props (1)
20-20: LGTM. Package change aligns with refactoring goals.The replacement of
Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.WorkspaceswithMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharpaligns with the PR objective to refactor for RS1038 compliance. This change reduces dependencies and focuses on core C# analysis capabilities.To ensure this change doesn't negatively impact the project, please run the following verification:
If any usages are found, please ensure they are properly addressed or removed as part of this refactoring.
src/Moq.CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.cs (4)
7-7: LGTM: Namespace change is consistent with the new project structure.The namespace change from
Moq.AnalyzerstoMoq.CodeFixesaligns with the PR objectives and the new project structure.
10-10: LGTM: Improved summary comment with specific analyzer information.The updated summary comment now includes the specific analyzer (Moq1100) that this code fix addresses, which enhances the documentation and clarity of the class's purpose.
Line range hint
24-86: LGTM: Improved null handling inRegisterCodeFixesAsyncandFixCallbackSignatureAsyncmethods.The additional null checks in both methods enhance the robustness of the code by preventing potential null reference exceptions. These changes align with best practices for defensive programming without altering the core logic of the methods.
Line range hint
1-86: Resolved: No unexpected tabs found.The previous issue of unexpected tabs mentioned in the past review comments has been addressed. The current file consistently uses spaces for indentation.
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (1)
114-118: LGTM! The changes improve code readability.The addition of braces to the if statement enhances code clarity and reduces the risk of future bugs when modifying the code.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs (3)
2-2: LGTM: Verifier alias updated correctlyThe
Verifieralias has been updated to use the newMoq.CodeFixesnamespace, which aligns with the PR objectives of creating a newMoq.CodeFixesproject. This change is correct and doesn't introduce any potential bugs.
Line range hint
22-141: LGTM: Test cases updated correctlyThe
TestDatamethod has been updated to correct callback signatures in several test cases. These changes align with the expected behavior of theCallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix. The updates ensure that the callback signatures match the mocked method signatures, which is the intended behavior.Here are some key observations:
- Incorrect callback signatures (e.g.,
int ifor a string parameter) have been corrected.- Callback signatures with incorrect number of parameters have been fixed.
- Test cases for various scenarios (single parameter, multiple parameters, generic types) are covered.
- Edge cases like nullable types and numeric conversions are included.
These changes improve the test coverage and accuracy of the test cases. No potential bugs or issues were identified in these updates.
Line range hint
1-324: Overall assessment: Changes look good with minor improvement suggestedThe changes made to this file, including the update to the
Verifieralias and the corrections to test cases in theTestDatamethod, are appropriate and align with the PR objectives. These updates improve the accuracy and coverage of the tests for theCallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.While no significant issues or bugs were identified, a suggestion was made to enhance the
ConversionTestDatamethod by adding more edge cases. This improvement would further strengthen the test suite.The changes in this file contribute positively to the overall goal of refactoring to support RS1038 and creating the new
Moq.CodeFixesproject.src/Moq.Analyzers/Moq.Analyzers.csproj (3)
27-27: Confirm thatMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharpsuffices for analyzer functionalityThe
PackageReferencehas been updated fromMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.WorkspacestoMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp. Ensure that all necessary APIs, especially those previously provided by theWorkspacespackage, are still available and that this change does not impact the analyzer's functionality.
38-39: Verify the inclusion pattern for output assembliesThe inclusion pattern has changed from
$(AssemblyName).dlltoMoq.*.dll. Please confirm that this pattern only includes the intended assemblies in the package and does not unintentionally include other DLLs that match this pattern.
41-42: Addition ofMoq.CodeFixesproject reference looks goodThe new
ProjectReferencetoMoq.CodeFixes.csprojappropriately establishes a dependency on the code fixes project, aligning with the objective to separate code fixes and comply with RS1038.
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 5b3e4e4 and detected 0 issues on this pull request. View more on Code Climate. |
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 |
Update code structure to be compliant with RS1038 related to #214
Changes
Moq.CodeFixesto encapsulate only the code fixesMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspacesreference onMoq.Analyzerscausing analyzer RS1038 to trigger, moved toMoq.CodeFixesSummary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Moq.CodeFixes, enhancing the functionality of the Moq analyzers.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores