Add rule to explicitly pick MockBehavior #226
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in this pull request introduce a new analyzer rule, Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
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
documentation
analyzers
![codeclimate[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/9403?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 15
🧹 Outside diff range comments (2)
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.cs (1)
Line range hint
3-3: Consider evaluating the use ofreadonlyinstead ofconst.The pragma directive
#pragma warning disable ECS0200suggests that there might be a reason to usereadonlyinstead ofconstfor flexibility. Whileconstis appropriate for compile-time constants,readonlyallows for runtime initialization and can be more flexible in certain scenarios.Consider evaluating if
readonlywould be more appropriate for these diagnostic IDs, especially if there's a possibility that these values might need to be changed at runtime or loaded from a configuration in the future.src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
Line range hint
68-75: Suggestion: OptimizeIsMethodReturnTypeTaskmethodWhile not directly related to the changes in this PR, the
IsMethodReturnTypeTaskmethod uses string comparisons, which might not be the most efficient approach.Consider refactoring this method to use symbol comparisons instead of string comparisons. This could improve performance, especially for large codebases. Here's a potential implementation:
public static bool IsMethodReturnTypeTask(this ISymbol methodSymbol) { if (methodSymbol is not IMethodSymbol method) return false; var returnType = method.ReturnType; if (returnType.ContainingNamespace?.ToDisplayString() != "System.Threading.Tasks") return false; return returnType.Name switch { "Task" => true, "ValueTask" => true, _ => returnType is INamedTypeSymbol { IsGenericType: true } namedType && (namedType.ConstructedFrom.Name == "Task" || namedType.ConstructedFrom.Name == "ValueTask") }; }This approach uses symbol information directly, avoiding string allocations and comparisons.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- docs/rules/Moq1400.md (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/AsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzer.cs (0 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Helpers/ReferenceAssemblyCatalog.cs (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/AsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzer.cs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (6)
docs/rules/Moq1400.md (1)
Pattern
docs/rules/**/*.md: Evaluate the markdown files against the standards for Roslyn Code Analysis rulessrc/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.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.Analyzers/Common/ISymbolExtensions.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.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.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Helpers/ReferenceAssemblyCatalog.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/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.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.
🪛 Markdownlint
docs/rules/Moq1400.md
14-14: Expected: 1; Actual: 2
Multiple consecutive blank lines(MD012, no-multiple-blanks)
src/Moq.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md
8-8: null
Files should end with a single newline character(MD047, single-trailing-newline)
🪛 GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
docs/rules/Moq1400.md
[notice] 14-14: docs/rules/Moq1400.md#L14
Expected: 1; Actual: 2src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs
[failure] 1-1: src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs#L1
Provide an 'AssemblyVersion' attribute for assembly 'srcassembly.dll'.tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs
[failure] 1-1: tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs#L1
Provide an 'AssemblyVersion' attribute for assembly 'srcassembly.dll'.
🔇 Additional comments (8)
src/Moq.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md (2)
1-5: LGTM: File header and section introduction are well-structured.The file header clearly explains the purpose of the document, and the "New Rules" section is properly introduced. This structure aids in readability and follows good documentation practices.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~1-~1: Loose punctuation mark.
Context: ; Unshipped analyzer release ; https://gi...(UNLIKELY_OPENING_PUNCTUATION)
🪛 Markdownlint
2-2: null
Bare URL used(MD034, no-bare-urls)
1-1: null
First line in a file should be a top-level heading(MD041, first-line-heading, first-line-h1)
6-8: LGTM: New ruleMoq1400is well-documented.The rule documentation provides all necessary information in a clear, tabular format. The inclusion of a link to the full documentation is particularly helpful for users.
Please verify that the documentation link is correct and accessible:
✅ Verification successful
Verification Successful: Documentation link is correct and accessible.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the documentation link for Moq1400 # Test: Check if the documentation file exists if fd -p "docs/rules/Moq1400.md"; then echo "Documentation file found." else echo "Documentation file not found. Please ensure it exists at the specified path." fi # Test: Verify the content of the documentation file if fd -p "docs/rules/Moq1400.md" -x cat; then echo "Documentation file content retrieved successfully." else echo "Failed to retrieve documentation file content. Please check file permissions and content." fiLength of output: 1547
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
8-8: null
Files should end with a single newline character(MD047, single-trailing-newline)
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.cs (1)
15-15: LGTM: New constant follows existing conventions and aligns with PR objectives.The new constant
SetExplicitMockBehaviorwith the value "Moq1400" follows the existing naming convention and value pattern. This addition aligns well with the PR objectives of introducing a new rule for explicitly choosing mocking behavior.docs/rules/Moq1400.md (1)
1-8: LGTM: Rule header and metadata are well-defined.The rule title clearly describes the purpose, and the metadata table provides essential information about the rule. The warning severity aligns with the PR objectives.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Helpers/ReferenceAssemblyCatalog.cs (1)
Line range hint
22-29: Consider potential issues with using different Moq versionsWhile the use of different Moq versions (4.8.2 and 4.18.4) for testing purposes is understandable, it's important to be aware of potential issues that may arise:
- Inconsistent behavior: Different versions may have slight variations in behavior, which could lead to inconsistent test results.
- Maintenance overhead: Keeping track of multiple versions and their specific features/bugs may increase maintenance complexity.
- Dependency conflicts: In more complex scenarios, having multiple versions could potentially lead to dependency conflicts.
To ensure that using different versions doesn't introduce unexpected issues, consider running the following verification:
This script will help identify any code that might be sensitive to Moq version differences, allowing you to verify that the use of different versions is intentional and properly handled throughout the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Verified: Different Moq versions are appropriately managed and do not introduce inconsistencies or conflicts.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any inconsistencies or issues related to using different Moq versions # Test: Search for usage of Moq-specific features that might differ between versions rg --type csharp -i '(mock|moq).*\.(setup|verify|of|behavior)' # Test: Check for any explicit version checks or conditionals related to Moq versions rg --type csharp -i '(moq.*version|#if.*moq)'Length of output: 24103
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs (2)
7-33: LGTM: Comprehensive test data generationThe
TestData()method provides a good coverage of different mock creation scenarios, including cases where theMoq1400diagnostic should be triggered. The use of extension methods for adding namespaces and reference assembly groups is a nice touch for maintaining clean and reusable test code.
1-58: Summary: Good test implementation with minor typo fixes neededOverall, this test file provides a comprehensive set of test cases for the
SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer. The implementation is well-structured and should effectively verify the analyzer's behavior across different scenarios.Key points:
- The
TestData()method generates a good variety of test cases.- The test method uses theory and member data appropriately for parameterized testing.
- The generated code snippets provide proper context for testing the analyzer.
The only issues found were typos in the class and method names ("Explict" instead of "Explicit"), which have been addressed in previous comments. Once these are fixed, the file will be in excellent shape.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
[failure] 1-1: tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs#L1
Provide an 'AssemblyVersion' attribute for assembly 'srcassembly.dll'.src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
18-23: LGTM: Documentation enhancementThe added examples in the XML documentation provide clear and relevant use cases for the
IsInstanceOfmethod. This improvement helps developers better understand how the method behaves with generic methods and types.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 15
🧹 Outside diff range comments (2)
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.cs (1)
Line range hint
3-3: Consider usingreadonlyinstead ofconstfor flexibilityThe pragma directive
#pragma warning disable ECS0200suggests that usingconstinstead ofreadonlymight reduce flexibility. Consider changing the constants toreadonlyfields if runtime flexibility is needed. This would allow the values to be determined at runtime if necessary, while still preventing modification after initialization.Example:
internal static class DiagnosticIds { internal static readonly string SealedClassCannotBeMocked = "Moq1000"; // ... other fields ... }This change would make the code more flexible without significantly impacting performance in most cases.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Helpers/ReferenceAssemblyCatalog.cs (1)
Line range hint
1-31: Consider improving error handling and version management.While the existing code appears to be functioning correctly, there are a couple of areas where it could be enhanced:
Error Handling: Consider adding explicit error handling for package resolution failures. This could help diagnose issues if the required Moq versions become unavailable or if there are network problems during test execution.
Version Management: The code currently hardcodes specific Moq versions. To improve maintainability, consider extracting these version numbers into constants or configuration values. This would make it easier to update versions in the future without modifying the code.
Here's a suggestion for implementing these improvements:
internal static class ReferenceAssemblyCatalog { private const string OldMoqVersion = "4.8.2"; private const string NewMoqVersion = "4.18.4"; public static string Net80WithOldMoq => nameof(Net80WithOldMoq); public static string Net80WithNewMoq => nameof(Net80WithNewMoq); public static IReadOnlyDictionary<string, ReferenceAssemblies> Catalog { get; } static ReferenceAssemblyCatalog() { try { Catalog = new Dictionary<string, ReferenceAssemblies>(StringComparer.Ordinal) { { nameof(Net80WithOldMoq), ReferenceAssemblies.Net.Net80.AddPackages([new PackageIdentity("Moq", OldMoqVersion)]) }, { nameof(Net80WithNewMoq), ReferenceAssemblies.Net.Net80.AddPackages([new PackageIdentity("Moq", NewMoqVersion)]) }, }; } catch (Exception ex) { // Log the error or throw a more specific exception throw new InvalidOperationException("Failed to initialize ReferenceAssemblyCatalog. Ensure all required packages are available.", ex); } } }This refactoring extracts version numbers into constants and adds basic error handling. It also uses a static constructor to initialize the
Catalog, which allows for exception handling during initialization.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- docs/rules/Moq1400.md (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/AsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzer.cs (0 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Helpers/ReferenceAssemblyCatalog.cs (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/AsShouldBeUsedOnlyForInterfaceAnalyzer.cs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (6)
docs/rules/Moq1400.md (1)
Pattern
docs/rules/**/*.md: Evaluate the markdown files against the standards for Roslyn Code Analysis rulessrc/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.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.Analyzers/Common/ISymbolExtensions.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.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.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Helpers/ReferenceAssemblyCatalog.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/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.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.
🪛 Markdownlint
docs/rules/Moq1400.md
14-14: Expected: 1; Actual: 2
Multiple consecutive blank lines(MD012, no-multiple-blanks)
src/Moq.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md
8-8: null
Files should end with a single newline character(MD047, single-trailing-newline)
🪛 GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
docs/rules/Moq1400.md
[notice] 14-14: docs/rules/Moq1400.md#L14
Expected: 1; Actual: 2src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs
[failure] 1-1: src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs#L1
Provide an 'AssemblyVersion' attribute for assembly 'srcassembly.dll'.tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs
[failure] 1-1: tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs#L1
Provide an 'AssemblyVersion' attribute for assembly 'srcassembly.dll'.
🔇 Additional comments (9)
src/Moq.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md (1)
1-3: LGTM: File header and documentation link.The file header clearly indicates that this is for an unshipped analyzer release, and the provided link to the documentation is helpful for understanding the purpose of this file.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~1-~1: Loose punctuation mark.
Context: ; Unshipped analyzer release ; https://gi...(UNLIKELY_OPENING_PUNCTUATION)
🪛 Markdownlint
2-2: null
Bare URL used(MD034, no-bare-urls)
1-1: null
First line in a file should be a top-level heading(MD041, first-line-heading, first-line-h1)
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.cs (1)
15-15: LGTM: New constant follows existing conventionsThe new constant
SetExplicitMockBehavioris correctly implemented. It follows the existing naming convention and value pattern used in theDiagnosticIdsclass.docs/rules/Moq1400.md (2)
1-8: LGTM: Rule header and metadata are well-defined.The rule title clearly describes its purpose, and the metadata table provides essential information about the rule. The default enabled state and warning severity align with the PR objectives.
1-47: Overall: Well-structured and informative rule documentation.The Moq1400 rule documentation is comprehensive, clear, and aligns well with the PR objectives. It effectively communicates the purpose of the rule, provides relevant examples, and offers clear solutions. The minor suggestions provided in the review comments would further enhance the document's quality and usefulness.
Great job on creating this new rule documentation!
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
14-14: Expected: 1; Actual: 2
Multiple consecutive blank lines(MD012, no-multiple-blanks)
🪛 GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
[notice] 14-14: docs/rules/Moq1400.md#L14
Expected: 1; Actual: 2tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs (1)
23-23: Verify the use ofWithNewMoqReferenceAssemblyGroups()The
fluentBuildersandmockRepositoriescollections useWithNewMoqReferenceAssemblyGroups(), whilemockConstructorsusesWithMoqReferenceAssemblyGroups(). This inconsistency might lead to unexpected behavior if these methods provide different reference assemblies.Please verify if this difference is intentional. If not, consider using the same method for all collections:
- }.WithNamespaces().WithNewMoqReferenceAssemblyGroups(); + }.WithNamespaces().WithMoqReferenceAssemblyGroups();Apply this change to both lines 23 and 30 if needed.
Also applies to: 30-30
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (2)
18-23: LGTM: Documentation improvementThe added examples in the XML documentation provide clear illustrations of how the
IsInstanceOfmethod behaves with generic types. This improvement helps developers better understand the method's functionality.
53-53: Approved, but note the breaking changeThe change from
IEnumerable<TSymbol>toImmutableArray<TSymbol>is a good optimization for read-only scenarios. However, this is a breaking change that will affect backward compatibility.Suggestions:
- Update the method's XML documentation to reflect this change.
- Ensure this breaking change is communicated in the project's changelog or release notes.
- Consider bumping the major version number of the library to indicate a breaking change, following semantic versioning principles.
To ensure all usages of this method are updated, run the following script:
This will help identify any places in the codebase that might need updating due to this change.
✅ Verification successful
Verification Successful
No external usages of
IsInstanceOfwithIEnumerable<TSymbol>were found. The change toImmutableArray<TSymbol>is contained withinISymbolExtensions.csand does not affect other parts of the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usages of IsInstanceOf method with IEnumerable rg --type csharp "IsInstanceOf\s*<.*?>\s*\([^)]*IEnumerable<.*?>\s*[^)]*\)"Length of output: 77
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usages of IsInstanceOf method with IEnumerable<TSymbol> rg --type csharp 'IsInstanceOf\s*<\w+>\s*\(\s*IEnumerable<\w+>\s*\)'Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for all usages of IsInstanceOf method regardless of generic parameters and argument types rg --type csharp 'IsInstanceOf\s*<.*?>\s*\('Length of output: 427
src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (2)
21-21: Verify availability of 'ThisAssembly.GitCommitId'The usage of
ThisAssembly.GitCommitIdin thehelpLinkUriassumes thatThisAssemblyandGitCommitIdare available during compilation. Please confirm that theThisAssemblyclass is generated appropriately (e.g., via a source generator likeGitInfo), and thatGitCommitIdwill be populated. Otherwise, this may result in a compilation error.
52-58: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionAvoid suppressing ECS0900 warning; refactor to minimize boxing and unboxing
The code suppresses the ECS0900 warning using
#pragma warning disableand#pragma warning restore. Instead of suppressing the warning, consider refactoring the code to eliminate boxing and unboxing operations as recommended by the warning.You can analyze the LINQ query to identify and reduce boxing/unboxing. For example, ensure that value types are not being unnecessarily boxed when selecting members.
MattKotsenas
force-pushed
the
feature/78-specify-behavior
branch
from
54d745a to
1c0ade3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- docs/rules/Moq1400.md (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
docs/rules/Moq1400.md (1)
Pattern
docs/rules/**/*.md: Evaluate the markdown files against the standards for Roslyn Code Analysis rules
🔇 Additional comments (1)
docs/rules/Moq1400.md (1)
1-8: LGTM: Clear and concise rule metadata.The rule title and metadata table effectively communicate the purpose and configuration of the Moq1400 rule. The information aligns well with the PR objectives.
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 264d108 and detected 9 issues 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: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
src/Moq.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.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.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/Moq.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.tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.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.
🪛 GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-22.04)
src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs
[failure] 94-94:
The name 'IsNotDefaultBehavior' does not exist in the current context
[failure] 122-122:
The name 'IsNotDefaultBehavior' does not exist in the current context
[failure] 132-132:
Remove the unused private method 'IsExplicitBehavior'. (https://rules.sonarsource.com/csharp/RSPEC-1144)
[failure] 94-94:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/ffe2ef5d88a82fe95d3716b9c52562f66e31e97f/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)
[failure] 122-122:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/ffe2ef5d88a82fe95d3716b9c52562f66e31e97f/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)
[failure] 94-94:
The name 'IsNotDefaultBehavior' does not exist in the current context
[failure] 122-122:
The name 'IsNotDefaultBehavior' does not exist in the current context
[failure] 132-132:
Remove the unused private method 'IsExplicitBehavior'. (https://rules.sonarsource.com/csharp/RSPEC-1144)
[failure] 94-94:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/ffe2ef5d88a82fe95d3716b9c52562f66e31e97f/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)
[failure] 122-122:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/ffe2ef5d88a82fe95d3716b9c52562f66e31e97f/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)
🪛 GitHub Check: build (windows-2022)
src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs
[failure] 94-94:
The name 'IsNotDefaultBehavior' does not exist in the current context
[failure] 122-122:
The name 'IsNotDefaultBehavior' does not exist in the current context
[failure] 132-132:
Remove the unused private method 'IsExplicitBehavior'. (https://rules.sonarsource.com/csharp/RSPEC-1144)
[failure] 94-94:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/ffe2ef5d88a82fe95d3716b9c52562f66e31e97f/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)
[failure] 122-122:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/ffe2ef5d88a82fe95d3716b9c52562f66e31e97f/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)
[failure] 94-94:
The name 'IsNotDefaultBehavior' does not exist in the current context
[failure] 122-122:
The name 'IsNotDefaultBehavior' does not exist in the current context
[failure] 132-132:
Remove the unused private method 'IsExplicitBehavior'. (https://rules.sonarsource.com/csharp/RSPEC-1144)
[failure] 94-94:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/ffe2ef5d88a82fe95d3716b9c52562f66e31e97f/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)
[failure] 122-122:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/ffe2ef5d88a82fe95d3716b9c52562f66e31e97f/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs (2)
5-33: Ensure comprehensive test coverage and correct test data structureThe
TestDatamethod compiles test cases for different mock creation scenarios using extension methods likeWithNamespaces()andWithMoqReferenceAssemblyGroups(). Please verify the following:
Test Data Structure: Confirm that the extension methods correctly augment each test case to provide all three parameters required by
ShouldAnalyzeMocksWithoutExplictMockBehavior:referenceAssemblyGroup,@namespace, andmock. Mismatches could lead to runtime errors or test failures.Edge Cases: Consider adding additional test cases to cover potential edge cases, such as:
- Mocks with additional arguments or configurations.
- Using
MockBehaviorspecified via variables or constants.- Scenarios involving generic type constraints or nested generics.
- Invalid or null inputs to ensure the analyzer handles exceptions gracefully.
Adding these tests will help identify any hidden issues related to edge cases or unexpected inputs.
37-57: Validate parameter alignment in the test methodThe test method
ShouldAnalyzeMocksWithoutExplictMockBehaviorexpects parameters forreferenceAssemblyGroup,@namespace, andmock. Ensure that the data provided byMemberData(nameof(TestData))aligns correctly with these parameters.
Parameter Consistency: Verify that each object array returned by
TestData()contains exactly three elements corresponding to the expected parameters. Misalignment can cause parameter binding issues during test execution.Data Integrity: Ensure that the values for
referenceAssemblyGroup,@namespace, andmockare correctly paired and represent valid combinations for testing.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplictMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
MattKotsenas
force-pushed
the
feature/78-specify-behavior
branch
from
264d108 to
4f8b41f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
src/Moq.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.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.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 (1)
src/Moq.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.
🔇 Additional comments (11)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs (4)
1-1: LGTM: Using statement is clear and concise.The alias 'Verifier' for
AnalyzerVerifier<SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer>improves code readability.
3-3: LGTM: Namespace is appropriate.The namespace
Moq.Analyzers.Testcorrectly reflects the purpose and location of these tests.
5-6: LGTM: Class declaration is clear and appropriate.The class name
SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzerTestsaccurately describes its purpose, and its public accessibility is suitable for test classes.
1-58: No apparent bugs found in the test code.After careful review, no bugs related to the categories mentioned in the coding guidelines (edge cases, off-by-one errors, unexpected data types, uncaught exceptions, concurrency issues, or improper configuration settings) were found in this test file. The code is straightforward and focused on testing the analyzer's behavior with predefined inputs.
src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (7)
1-3: Global Usings Efficiently ManagedThe use of global usings effectively includes necessary namespaces, keeping the code clean and organized.
27-33: 'Initialize' Method Properly Configures the AnalyzerThe
Initializemethod correctly sets up the analysis context, enabling concurrent execution and registering the compilation start action.
35-42: 'RegisterCompilationStartAction' Method Well-StructuredThe
RegisterCompilationStartActionmethod efficiently checks for the presence of Moq references and registers operation actions accordingly.
45-49: Usage of 'WellKnownTypeNames' Is AppropriateThe retrieval of
MockBehaviorusingWellKnownTypeNamesis correctly implemented, and acknowledging the global usings avoids unnecessary imports.
132-135: 'IsExplicitBehavior' Method Accurately Identifies BehaviorsThe
IsExplicitBehaviormethod correctly checks for explicit mock behaviors "Loose" and "Strict", ensuring that the default behavior is not unintentionally used.
Line range hint
138-138: Overall Implementation Aligns with Best PracticesThe
SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzeris well-implemented, adhering to Roslyn analyzer standards and effectively fulfilling the PR objectives.
79-87: Ensure 'IsInstanceOf' Extension Method Is AccessibleThe method
IsInstanceOfis used but not defined within this file. Verify that the extension method is properly imported or defined in the codebase to prevent compilation errors.Run the following script to check for the definition of
IsInstanceOf:
| foreach (IArgumentOperation argument in creationOperation.Arguments) | ||
| { | ||
| if (argument.Value is IFieldReferenceOperation fieldReferenceOperation) | ||
| { | ||
| ISymbol field = fieldReferenceOperation.Member; | ||
| if (field.ContainingType.IsInstanceOf(mockBehaviorSymbol) && IsExplicitBehavior(field.Name)) | ||
| { | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Handle Explicit Behaviors Specified via Variables or Expressions
The current implementation checks for mock behaviors specified directly as field references. Consider extending the analysis to handle scenarios where the mock behavior is provided via variables, method calls, or expressions to avoid false positives.
For example, if a mock behavior is assigned to a variable and then passed as an argument, the analyzer may incorrectly report a diagnostic. Enhancing the logic to perform a more comprehensive analysis of the argument values can improve accuracy.
| foreach (IArgumentOperation argument in invocationOperation.Arguments) | ||
| { | ||
| if (argument.Value is IFieldReferenceOperation fieldReferenceOperation) | ||
| { | ||
| ISymbol field = fieldReferenceOperation.Member; | ||
| if (field.ContainingType.IsInstanceOf(mockBehaviorSymbol) && IsExplicitBehavior(field.Name)) | ||
| { | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Unified Argument Analysis across Methods
The argument analysis logic in AnalyzeInvocation mirrors that in AnalyzeNewObject. Consider refactoring this repetitive code into a shared method to enhance maintainability and reduce duplication.
Extract the argument analysis into a helper method:
private static bool HasExplicitBehavior(ImmutableArray<IArgumentOperation> arguments, INamedTypeSymbol mockBehaviorSymbol)
{
foreach (IArgumentOperation argument in arguments)
{
if (argument.Value is IFieldReferenceOperation fieldReferenceOperation)
{
ISymbol field = fieldReferenceOperation.Member;
if (field.ContainingType.IsInstanceOf(mockBehaviorSymbol) && IsExplicitBehavior(field.Name))
{
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}Then update the methods:
// In AnalyzeNewObject
-if (/* argument analysis logic */)
+if (HasExplicitBehavior(creationOperation.Arguments, mockBehaviorSymbol))
// In AnalyzeInvocation
-if (/* argument analysis logic */)
+if (HasExplicitBehavior(invocationOperation.Arguments, mockBehaviorSymbol))| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| context.ReportDiagnostic(creationOperation.Syntax.GetLocation().CreateDiagnostic(Rule)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Provide More Specific Diagnostic Location
When reporting the diagnostic, consider pinpointing the location of the default mock behavior argument rather than the entire object creation syntax. This will help developers identify the exact issue more efficiently.
Apply this diff to report the diagnostic at the specific argument location:
-context.ReportDiagnostic(creationOperation.Syntax.GetLocation().CreateDiagnostic(Rule));
+if (creationOperation.Arguments.Length > 0)
+{
+ context.ReportDiagnostic(creationOperation.Arguments[0].Syntax.GetLocation().CreateDiagnostic(Rule));
+}
+else
+{
+ context.ReportDiagnostic(creationOperation.Syntax.GetLocation().CreateDiagnostic(Rule));
+}📝 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.
| context.ReportDiagnostic(creationOperation.Syntax.GetLocation().CreateDiagnostic(Rule)); | |
| if (creationOperation.Arguments.Length > 0) | |
| { | |
| context.ReportDiagnostic(creationOperation.Arguments[0].Syntax.GetLocation().CreateDiagnostic(Rule)); | |
| } | |
| else | |
| { | |
| context.ReportDiagnostic(creationOperation.Syntax.GetLocation().CreateDiagnostic(Rule)); | |
| } |
| #pragma warning disable ECS0900 // Minimize boxing and unboxing | ||
| ImmutableArray<IMethodSymbol> ofMethods = mockTypes | ||
| .SelectMany(mockType => mockType.GetMembers(WellKnownTypeNames.Of)) | ||
| .OfType<IMethodSymbol>() | ||
| .Where(method => method.IsGenericMethod) | ||
| .ToImmutableArray(); | ||
| #pragma warning restore ECS0900 // Minimize boxing and unboxing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Clarify Suppression of 'ECS0900' Warning
The suppression of the ECS0900 warning for minimizing boxing and unboxing is noted. Consider providing a comment explaining why this suppression is necessary to aid future maintainability.
Apply this diff to add an explanatory comment:
#pragma warning disable ECS0900 // Minimize boxing and unboxing
+// Suppressing this warning because the LINQ query does not significantly impact performance in this context.
ImmutableArray<IMethodSymbol> ofMethods = mockTypes📝 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.
| #pragma warning disable ECS0900 // Minimize boxing and unboxing | |
| ImmutableArray<IMethodSymbol> ofMethods = mockTypes | |
| .SelectMany(mockType => mockType.GetMembers(WellKnownTypeNames.Of)) | |
| .OfType<IMethodSymbol>() | |
| .Where(method => method.IsGenericMethod) | |
| .ToImmutableArray(); | |
| #pragma warning restore ECS0900 // Minimize boxing and unboxing | |
| #pragma warning disable ECS0900 // Minimize boxing and unboxing | |
| // Suppressing this warning because the LINQ query does not significantly impact performance in this context. | |
| ImmutableArray<IMethodSymbol> ofMethods = mockTypes | |
| .SelectMany(mockType => mockType.GetMembers(WellKnownTypeNames.Of)) | |
| .OfType<IMethodSymbol>() | |
| .Where(method => method.IsGenericMethod) | |
| .ToImmutableArray(); | |
| #pragma warning restore ECS0900 // Minimize boxing and unboxing |
Fixes #78
Add rule "Moq1400: Explicitly choose a mocking behavior instead of relying on the default (Loose) behavior"
This addresses a top pain point for Moq in large teams: accidentally relying on Moq's default "loose" behavior. Not specifying a behavior or specifying
MockBehavior.Defaultinnew Mock(),Mock.Of(), ornew MockRepository()raises a warning.This change does not enforce
MockBehavior.Stricteverywhere. That will be a separate rule (coming later) as it's more controversial and thus likely requires some configuration.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Moq1400, to enforce explicit selection of mocking behavior in the Moq framework.Bug Fixes
Mock.As()method is only used with interface types.Tests
SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzerto verify its functionality in detecting missing explicit mock behavior.Documentation