Remove dead suppressions and dead code #242
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request includes modifications to various Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range comments (2)
src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (2)
Line range hint
419-419: Remove suppression by refactoring the method.The suppression for MA0051 acknowledges the need for refactoring. Consider breaking down this method into smaller, focused methods:
- Extract params parameter validation into a separate method
- Extract fixed parameter validation into a separate method
- Create a dedicated method for handling optional parameters
Example refactoring:
private static bool AnyConstructorsFound( IMethodSymbol[] constructors, ArgumentSyntax[] arguments, SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context) { return constructors.Any(constructor => ConstructorMatchesArguments(constructor, arguments, context)); } private static bool ConstructorMatchesArguments( IMethodSymbol constructor, ArgumentSyntax[] arguments, SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context) { if (!ValidateParameterCount(constructor, arguments)) return false; if (!ValidateFixedParameters(constructor, arguments, context)) return false; return !HasParamsParameter(constructor) || ValidateParamsParameters(constructor, arguments, context); } private static bool ValidateParameterCount( IMethodSymbol constructor, ArgumentSyntax[] arguments) { bool hasParams = HasParamsParameter(constructor); int fixedParametersCount = hasParams ? constructor.Parameters.Length - 1 : constructor.Parameters.Length; int requiredParameters = constructor.Parameters .Count(parameterSymbol => !parameterSymbol.IsOptional); return arguments.Length >= requiredParameters && (hasParams || arguments.Length <= fixedParametersCount); }
Line range hint
420-421: Remove ECS0900 suppressions by using alternative implementations.The suppressions for boxing/unboxing warnings can be eliminated by using more efficient alternatives:
-#pragma warning disable ECS0900 - int requiredParameters = constructor.Parameters.Count(parameterSymbol => !parameterSymbol.IsOptional); -#pragma warning restore ECS0900 + int requiredParameters = 0; + foreach (var parameter in constructor.Parameters) + { + if (!parameter.IsOptional) + requiredParameters++; + }-#pragma warning disable ECS0900 - ArgumentSyntax[] arguments = argumentList?.Arguments.ToArray() ?? []; -#pragma warning restore ECS0900 + ArgumentSyntax[] arguments; + if (argumentList != null) + { + var argList = argumentList.Arguments; + arguments = new ArgumentSyntax[argList.Count]; + argList.CopyTo(arguments); + } + else + { + arguments = []; + }Also applies to: 516-517
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (17)
- .editorconfig (0 hunks)
- build/targets/codeanalysis/.globalconfig (0 hunks)
- src/Analyzers/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodAnalyzer.cs (0 hunks)
- src/Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
- src/Analyzers/NoMethodsInPropertySetupAnalyzer.cs (0 hunks)
- src/Analyzers/NoSealedClassMocksAnalyzer.cs (0 hunks)
- src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs (0 hunks)
- src/Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs (0 hunks)
- src/CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.cs (0 hunks)
- src/Common/ArrayExtensions.cs (0 hunks)
- src/Common/MoqSetupMethodDescriptor.cs (0 hunks)
- src/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (0 hunks)
- src/tools/PerfDiff/.editorconfig (0 hunks)
- tests/.editorconfig (0 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/CSharpCompilationCreator.cs (0 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/CompilationCreator.cs (0 hunks)
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/ExportProviderExtensions.cs (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (16)
- .editorconfig
- build/targets/codeanalysis/.globalconfig
- src/Analyzers/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodAnalyzer.cs
- src/Analyzers/NoMethodsInPropertySetupAnalyzer.cs
- src/Analyzers/NoSealedClassMocksAnalyzer.cs
- src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs
- src/Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs
- src/CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFix.cs
- src/Common/ArrayExtensions.cs
- src/Common/MoqSetupMethodDescriptor.cs
- src/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs
- src/tools/PerfDiff/.editorconfig
- tests/.editorconfig
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/CSharpCompilationCreator.cs
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/CompilationCreator.cs
- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/ExportProviderExtensions.cs
🧰 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.
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit badc0b3 and detected 0 issues on this pull request. View more on Code Climate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range comments (1)
src/Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (1)
Line range hint
12-24: Design flaw: Flat fee after discount can result in higher final price.The current implementation adds a $20 fee after applying the discount, which can result in customers paying more than if they had no discount. For example:
- $100 purchase with 10% discount becomes $110 ($100 - $10 + $20)
- Customer pays more despite having loyalty status
Consider these alternatives:
- Apply fee before discount
- Scale fee based on purchase amount
- Waive fee for loyal customers
- Set minimum purchase amount for fee
Would you like me to propose a specific implementation for any of these approaches?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- src/Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (1 hunks)
- src/CodeFixes/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (1)
Line range hint
1-2: LGTM! Clean implementation of subtraction.src/CodeFixes/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (1)
1056-1056: LGTM! Change aligns with PR objectives.Setting
IsEverSuppressed: falsefor rule S2583 (Conditionally executed code should be reachable) is appropriate as it enforces better code quality by preventing suppression of unreachable code warnings.
rjmurillo
approved these changes
Oct 25, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #90
Summary by CodeRabbit
.editorconfigfiles across multiple directories to disable unnecessary diagnostic rules.