SA1100 incorrectly removes base. if a class doesn't have a local implementation but a subclass does

[ali-hk]

In the following scenario base. is incorrectly removed:

class A: B
{
    public override void DoSomething() 
    {
         OtherMethod();
    }
}

class B: C
{
    public void OtherMethod()
    {
       base.DoSomething();
    }
}

class C
{
    public virtual void DoSomething()
    {
         // Do some logic
    }
}

If base. is removed in this scenario, the derived method is called (A.DoSomething() -> B.OtherMethod() -> A.DoSomething() -> B.OtherMethod() ... instead of A.DoSomething() -> B.OtherMethod() -> C.DoSomething()), causing a StackOverflowException. This isn't great design, but the fix is dangerous because of this scenario.

[JakubLinhart]

This rule cannot be applied safely to any virtual method call when it is called from a non-private method, is it right?

[sharwell]

This is a case where the diagnostic is fine, but the code fix should not apply a change automatically.