Add Item 13: Use proper initialization for static class members #66

rjmurillo · 2024-09-17T00:00:36Z

This pull request introduced a new Roslyn analyzer to enforce best practices for static member initializers and assignments in C#. The analyzer identifies cases where a member variable is static and complex, indicating it should move to the type's static constructor.

Changes

Analyzer StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer:
- Detects static member variable assignment and initialization
- Detects member variable assignment from methods, suggesting complex cases move to the type's static constructor
Code fix provider: None
- The initialization logic of applications can be complex and a code fix provider can be equally complex to capture all cases of remediation. This implementation only shows areas of potential issue.
Tests: Added comprehensive unit tests for the new static class member initialization analyzer to ensure proper functionality and coverage. Includes benchmarking tests to evaluate the performance of the static member initialization analyzer.

Closed #56

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

New Features
- Introduced a new rule (ECS1300) for proper initialization of static class members in C# to enhance code quality.
- Added support for customizing safe methods in static initialization via EditorConfig.
- Enhanced the dictionary functionality to recognize the term "stringly."
Bug Fixes
- Adjusted the suppression capability for the method chaining rule (RCS1201) to allow flexibility.
Tests
- Added comprehensive unit tests for the new static class member initialization analyzer and configuration helper.

coderabbitai · 2024-09-17T00:00:45Z

Walkthrough

The changes introduce a new diagnostic analyzer for C# that enforces proper initialization practices for static class members. It includes a new documentation file outlining the coding rule, updates to existing classes to support the analyzer, and a comprehensive suite of unit tests to validate its functionality. The analyzer identifies potentially unsafe static member initializations and provides recommendations for using static constructors or lazy initialization to ensure robustness and maintainability.

Changes

Files	Change Summary
docs/rules/ECS1300.md	Added documentation for a new rule on proper initialization of static class members in C#.
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.cs	Introduced a new diagnostic ID `ECS1300` for static class member initialization issues.
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs	Implemented a new analyzer to enforce best practices for static member initialization.
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/AnalyzerConfigurationHelper.cs	Added a helper method for retrieving configured safe items for diagnostics.
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs	Created unit tests for the new analyzer, covering various initialization scenarios.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Ensure proper initialization of static class members (Issue #56)	✅
Identify improper use of instance constructors for static members (Issue #56)	✅
Recommend static constructors for complex initializations (Issue #56)	✅
Handle exceptions during static member initialization (Issue #56)	✅

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?

❤️ Share

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
- Generate unit testing code for this file.
- Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
- @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

@coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
@coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
@coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
@coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
@coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
@coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
@coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
@coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 3

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4df417e and ce40605.

Files selected for processing (7)

docs/rules/ECS1300.md (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/Categories.cs (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.cs (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/Helpers/AnalyzerVerifier.cs (1 hunks)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs (1 hunks)

Additional context used

Path-based instructions (6)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/Categories.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/Helpers/AnalyzerVerifier.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/EffectiveCSharp.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/EffectiveCSharp.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.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.

LanguageTool

docs/rules/ECS1300.md

[uncategorized] ~15-~15: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...plex initialization logic into a static constructor where you can handle exceptions and con...

(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)

[uncategorized] ~100-~100: Possible missing preposition found.
Context: ... the methods used. ### Precautions - Ensure Safety: Only add methods that are gua...

(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_TO)

Markdownlint

docs/rules/ECS1300.md

82-82: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

99-99: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

100-100: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD032, blanks-around-lists)

189-189: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs

[failure] 238-238:
'internal' members should come before 'private' members (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1202.md)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs

[failure] 143-143:
Closing brace should be followed by blank line (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1513.md)

[failure] 197-197:
Closing brace should be followed by blank line (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1513.md)

[failure] 16-16:
Diagnostic Id for rule 'Rule' must be a non-null constant

[failure] 4-4:
Documentation text should end with a period (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1629.md)

[failure] 144-144:
Elements should be separated by blank line (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1516.md)

[failure] 198-198:
Elements should be separated by blank line (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1516.md)

[failure] 233-233:
Use trailing comma in multi-line initializers (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1413.md)

[failure] 291-291:
Use string.Equals instead of Equals operator (https://github.com/meziantou/Meziantou.Analyzer/blob/main/docs/Rules/MA0006.md)

[failure] 143-143:
Closing brace should be followed by blank line (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1513.md)

Additional comments not posted (26)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/Categories.cs (1)

10-10: LGTM!

The new field Initialization is a valuable addition to the Categories class. It follows the existing naming convention and initialization pattern, making it consistent with the other fields in the class.

The field name clearly conveys its purpose, and its internal accessibility modifier ensures that it is only accessible within the same assembly, which is appropriate for this use case.

Overall, this change enhances the categorization options available for code analysis without altering any existing functionality.

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/Helpers/AnalyzerVerifier.cs (1)

6-7: LGTM!

The new VerifyAnalyzerAsync method provides a convenient and simplified interface for verifying analyzers. It improves the usability and accessibility of the AnalyzerVerifier class by reducing the number of parameters required for the most common use case.

The method is well-named, follows the async naming convention, and delegates the actual verification logic to the existing overload. It maintains consistency with the existing code and does not introduce any breaking changes or compatibility issues.

Great job on enhancing the AnalyzerVerifier class!

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticIds.cs (1)

19-19: LGTM!

The new constant StaticClassMemberInitialization is declared correctly and follows the naming convention and value pattern of other diagnostic IDs in the class. It expands the set of available diagnostic IDs, potentially allowing for new checks or warnings related to the initialization of static class members.

docs/rules/ECS1300.md (5)

3-6: Excellent explanation of the cause!

The section effectively highlights the risks associated with initializing static fields using complex expressions or method calls that may throw exceptions. It clearly conveys the potential consequences, such as runtime errors and application crashes, emphasizing the importance of the rule.

7-12: Great rule description!

The section provides a clear and detailed explanation of the rule, highlighting the issues it identifies and the potential consequences of violating it. The suggested solutions, using a static constructor or Lazy<T>, are well-explained and provide developers with practical guidance on how to address the problem.

13-48: Excellent guidance on fixing violations!

The section provides clear and practical advice on how to address violations of the rule. The two suggested approaches, using a static constructor and Lazy<T>, are appropriate and well-explained. The code examples for each approach effectively demonstrate how to implement the solutions, making it easy for developers to understand and apply the guidance.

Tools

LanguageTool

[uncategorized] ~15-~15: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...plex initialization logic into a static constructor where you can handle exceptions and con...

(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)

50-102: Great section on extending the rule with safe methods!

The section provides clear and detailed guidance on how to customize safe methods using configuration in an EditorConfig file. The examples of when to use this option, such as with third-party libraries or custom utility methods, are relevant and helpful. The precautions mentioned are important and help ensure that developers use this feature responsibly, only adding methods that are guaranteed to be safe for static initialization.

Tools

LanguageTool

[uncategorized] ~100-~100: Possible missing preposition found.
Context: ... the methods used. ### Precautions - Ensure Safety: Only add methods that are gua...

(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_TO)

Markdownlint

82-82: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

99-99: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

100-100: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD032, blanks-around-lists)

103-189: Excellent sections on suppressing warnings, example violations, and example fixes!

The guidance on when to suppress warnings is clear and includes appropriate caveats, ensuring that developers use this option judiciously. The example violation and fixes are relevant and effectively demonstrate the problem and its solutions, making it easy for developers to understand and apply the rule in practice.

Tools

Markdownlint

189-189: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (1)

238-242: LGTM!

The IsCompileTimeConstant function correctly checks if an expression is a compile-time constant by using the GetConstantValue method from the SemanticModel. The logic is sound and the implementation is accurate.

The static analysis hint about moving internal members before private members is not applicable here as there are no private members in this class.

Tools

GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)

[failure] 238-238:
'internal' members should come before 'private' members (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1202.md)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs (4)

1-23: LGTM!

The diagnostic analyzer class is properly defined with the required metadata and rule properties. The help link URI is constructed correctly using the ThisAssembly.GitCommitId placeholder.

Tools

GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)

[failure] 16-16:
Diagnostic Id for rule 'Rule' must be a non-null constant

[failure] 4-4:
Documentation text should end with a period (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1629.md)

25-55: LGTM!

The SafeMethods set contains a comprehensive list of safe methods for static field initialization. The use of StringComparer.Ordinal for case-sensitive comparison is appropriate.

57-77: LGTM!

The Initialize method is correctly overridden to set up the analyzer. Concurrent execution is enabled for thread-safety and performance. Configuration options are read to get additional safe methods, and the syntax node action is registered correctly to analyze field declarations.

79-122: LGTM!

The AnalyzeFieldDeclaration method correctly handles FieldDeclarationSyntax nodes, checks for the static modifier, and ignores constants. It iterates through the variable declarations, checks the initializer complexity using the IsComplexInitializer method, and reports diagnostic warnings for complex initializers.

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs (13)

9-18: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a simple constant does not trigger any diagnostic. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

22-31: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a constant from another type (System.Math.PI) does not trigger any diagnostic. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

35-45: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a safe method call (System.Math.Max(10, 20)) does not trigger any diagnostic. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

49-64: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with an unsafe method call (LoadConfigValue()) that may throw exceptions triggers a diagnostic. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

68-78: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with an object creation expression (new Random()) triggers a diagnostic. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

82-93: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field by referencing another static field within the same class (BaseValue + 5) does not trigger any diagnostic. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

97-113: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field by referencing a static field from a base class (BaseValue + 5) does not trigger any diagnostic. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

117-132: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a non-static field with a complex initializer (LoadConfigValue()) does not trigger any diagnostic. The analyzer is designed to analyze static fields, and non-static fields are not subject to the same initialization restrictions. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

136-146: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that declaring a static constant field (MaxItems) does not trigger any diagnostic. Static constant fields are implicitly safe and do not pose any initialization risks. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

150-160: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that declaring a static field without an initializer (MaxItems) does not trigger any diagnostic. Static fields without initializers are safe because they will be automatically initialized to their default values. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

164-176: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a collection initializer (new List<int> { 1, 2, 3 }) does not trigger any diagnostic. Collection initializers with simple, constant values are safe and do not pose any initialization risks. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

179-191: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a complex list initializer that involves a method call (GetNumber()) triggers a diagnostic. Complex list initializers with non-constant expressions may have side effects or throw exceptions and should be flagged by the analyzer. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

194-208: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a simple dictionary initializer (new Dictionary<string, int> { { "One", 1 }, { "Two", 2 } }) does not trigger any diagnostic. Dictionary initializers with simple, constant keys and values are safe and do not pose any initialization risks. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs

coderabbitai

Caution

Inline review comments failed to post

Actionable comments posted: 1

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between ce40605 and 987ed5a.

Files selected for processing (5)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (3 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/Helpers/AnalyzerVerifier.cs (1 hunks)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs (1 hunks)

Additional context used

Path-based instructions (4)

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/Helpers/AnalyzerVerifier.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/EffectiveCSharp.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.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

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md

9-9: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs

[failure] 10-10:
Consider using readonly instead of const for better flexibility (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/987ed5af0ec24006aa6a60022d578b7b7b1ede79/docs/rules/ECS0200.md)

[failure] 10-10:
Consider using readonly instead of const for better flexibility (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/987ed5af0ec24006aa6a60022d578b7b7b1ede79/docs/rules/ECS0200.md)

Additional comments not posted (25)

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/Helpers/AnalyzerVerifier.cs (1)

6-6: LGTM!

The new VerifyAnalyzerAsync(string source) method is a great addition that simplifies the analyzer verification process for common use cases. By defaulting to the latest reference assembly group, it reduces the number of parameters required and makes the API more accessible for developers.

The implementation looks correct and aligns well with the PR objective of enhancing usability.

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (2)

11-14: LGTM!

The updated XML documentation improves readability and consistency by using <see langword="true" /> and <see langword="false" /> for the return value description.

169-185: Looks good!

The new IsCompileTimeConstant method is implemented correctly and enhances the semantic analysis capabilities of the SemanticModelExtensions class. It utilizes the GetConstantValue method from the SemanticModel to determine if a given SyntaxNode has a constant value and returns a boolean indicating the presence of the constant value. The method is well-documented with clear XML comments explaining the parameters, return value, and behavior.

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs (8)

1-77: LGTM!

The code segment defining the StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer class is well-structured and follows the DiagnosticAnalyzer pattern. The diagnostic rule is clearly defined, and the safe methods collection provides flexibility. The Initialize method sets up the necessary actions for the analyzer.

Tools

GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)

[failure] 10-10:
Consider using readonly instead of const for better flexibility (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/987ed5af0ec24006aa6a60022d578b7b7b1ede79/docs/rules/ECS0200.md)

[failure] 10-10:
Consider using readonly instead of const for better flexibility (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/987ed5af0ec24006aa6a60022d578b7b7b1ede79/docs/rules/ECS0200.md)

79-122: LGTM!

The AnalyzeFieldDeclaration method correctly analyzes field declarations and reports diagnostics for complex initializers. The logic is clear and follows the expected behavior.

124-143: LGTM!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods method correctly retrieves the additional safe methods from the analyzer configuration. It handles the parsing and trimming of method names appropriately.

145-198: LGTM!

The IsComplexInitializer method correctly determines the complexity of initializers by handling different expression types. The logic is well-structured and covers various scenarios. The recursive checks for array creations, object creations, and conditional expressions ensure a thorough analysis.

200-375: LGTM!

The helper methods in this code segment are well-organized and cover various scenarios for determining the safety of expressions and initializers. The logic is clear and follows the expected behavior. The recursive checks ensure a thorough analysis of subexpressions.

377-410: LGTM!

The IsSimpleExpression method correctly determines the simplicity of expressions by handling different expression types. The logic is well-structured and covers various scenarios. The recursive checks for conditional expressions and member access expressions ensure a thorough analysis.

412-424: LGTM!

The IsSimpleImplicitArrayCreation method correctly determines the simplicity of implicit array creation expressions by checking the simplicity of each initializer expression. The logic is straightforward and follows the expected behavior.

1-425: Overall Assessment: Excellent Work!

The StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer class is a well-implemented diagnostic analyzer that enforces proper initialization practices for static class members. The code is well-structured, follows best practices, and covers a wide range of scenarios. The analyzer correctly identifies complex initializers and provides meaningful diagnostics to guide developers towards safer initialization practices.

Some key highlights:

The diagnostic rule is clearly defined, and the safe methods collection provides flexibility.

The AnalyzeFieldDeclaration method correctly analyzes field declarations and reports diagnostics for complex initializers.

The helper methods are well-organized and cover various scenarios for determining the safety and simplicity of expressions and initializers.

The recursive checks ensure a thorough analysis of subexpressions.

Overall, this is an excellent addition to the analyzer suite, promoting better coding practices and helping developers write more robust and maintainable code.

Tools

GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)

[failure] 10-10:
Consider using readonly instead of const for better flexibility (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/987ed5af0ec24006aa6a60022d578b7b7b1ede79/docs/rules/ECS0200.md)

[failure] 10-10:
Consider using readonly instead of const for better flexibility (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/987ed5af0ec24006aa6a60022d578b7b7b1ede79/docs/rules/ECS0200.md)

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs (14)

7-18: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a simple constant does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

20-31: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a constant from a well-known type like System.Math does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

33-45: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a call to a known safe method like System.Math.Max does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

47-64: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a call to an unsafe method that may throw exceptions triggers a diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet demonstrates the scenario accurately, and the expected diagnostic is asserted correctly.

66-78: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with an object creation expression triggers a diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet demonstrates the scenario accurately, and the expected diagnostic is asserted correctly.

80-93: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field by referencing another static field within the same class does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

95-112: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field by referencing a static field from a base class does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet demonstrates the scenario accurately, and the expected behavior is asserted correctly.

114-131: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a non-static field with a complex initializer that may throw exceptions does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet demonstrates the scenario accurately, and the expected behavior is asserted correctly.

133-145: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that declaring a static constant field does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

147-159: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that declaring a static field without an initializer does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

161-175: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a collection initializer containing simple values does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

177-190: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a complex list initializer that involves method calls triggers a diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet demonstrates the scenario accurately, and the expected diagnostic is asserted correctly.

192-207: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a simple dictionary initializer containing literal keys and values does not trigger any diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet and the expected behavior are valid.

209-227: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a complex dictionary initializer that involves method calls triggers a diagnostic from the analyzer. The code snippet demonstrates the scenario accurately, and the expected diagnostic is asserted correctly.

Comments failed to post (1)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md (1)

9-9: Excellent addition of the new rule ECS1300 for static class member initialization!

The introduction of rule ECS1300 aligns perfectly with the PR objectives and the linked issue, which aim to enforce proper initialization practices for static class members in C#. This rule will greatly contribute to improving code quality and maintainability by guiding developers to follow best practices when initializing static members.

The informational severity level is well-chosen, as it allows the rule to provide valuable recommendations without causing build failures or errors. The inclusion of the documentation link is also commendable, as it enables developers to access detailed information about the rule and its application.

Just a minor nitpick:

To adhere to the Markdownlint suggestion, please add a newline character at the end of the file.

Tools

Markdownlint

9-9: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

…global state

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 987ed5a and 26583c1.

Files selected for processing (12)

docs/rules/ECS1300.md (1 hunks)
effectivecsharpanalyzers.sln.DotSettings (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/AnalyzerConfigurationHelper.cs (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (3 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.csproj (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
src/tools/Dogfood/.globalconfig (1 hunks)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Ecs1300Benchmarks.cs (1 hunks)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/AnalyzerConfigurationHelperTests.cs (1 hunks)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/Helpers/AnalyzerVerifier.cs (1 hunks)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs (1 hunks)

Additional context used

Path-based instructions (7)

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/Helpers/AnalyzerVerifier.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/AnalyzerConfigurationHelper.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Ecs1300Benchmarks.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/AnalyzerConfigurationHelperTests.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/EffectiveCSharp.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.

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.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

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md

9-9: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

docs/rules/ECS1300.md

83-83: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

100-100: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

101-101: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD032, blanks-around-lists)

190-190: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

LanguageTool

docs/rules/ECS1300.md

[uncategorized] ~101-~101: Possible missing preposition found.
Context: ... the methods used. ### Precautions - Ensure Safety: Only add methods that are gua...

(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_TO)

GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs

[failure] 463-463:
Method is too long (63 lines; maximum allowed: 60) (https://github.com/meziantou/Meziantou.Analyzer/blob/main/docs/Rules/MA0051.md)

[failure] 463-463:
Method is too long (63 lines; maximum allowed: 60) (https://github.com/meziantou/Meziantou.Analyzer/blob/main/docs/Rules/MA0051.md)

Additional comments not posted (62)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md (1)

9-9: LGTM!

The new rule ECS1300 for static class member initialization is a valuable addition to the analyzer. The rule ID, category, severity, and analyzer name are consistent with the project's conventions. The informational severity is appropriate for a recommendation rule. The documentation link is correctly formatted and points to the relevant file.

This rule will help improve code quality by enforcing best practices for static member initialization without breaking existing code.

Tools

Markdownlint

9-9: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

effectivecsharpanalyzers.sln.DotSettings (1)

3-4: LGTM!

The addition of the word "stringly" to the UserDictionary is a valid enhancement to the analyzer's functionality. The entry is consistent with the existing structure and is unlikely to have any negative impact.

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/Helpers/AnalyzerVerifier.cs (1)

6-6: LGTM!

The new VerifyAnalyzerAsync(string source) method is a useful addition to the AnalyzerVerifier<TAnalyzer> class. It provides a more convenient way to verify analyzers by defaulting the reference assembly group to the latest version.

The method is implemented correctly:

It is marked as async and correctly awaits the call to the underlying method.

It uses .ConfigureAwait(false) to avoid capturing the current context, which is a good practice for library code.

Overall, this change improves the usability of the class without changing the existing behavior or introducing new functionality.

src/tools/Dogfood/.globalconfig (2)

16-33: LGTM!

Enabling a comprehensive set of diagnostic codes as warnings aligns with the PR objective of enforcing proper initialization practices for static class members. This will help identify potential issues during development.

35-35: Verify the impact on diagnostics handling.

Specifying Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.DiagnosticDescriptor as a safe item for dotnet_diagnostic.ECS1300 aligns with the focus on diagnostics handling mentioned in the summary. Please verify that this change has the intended impact on how diagnostics are processed or reported.

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/AnalyzerConfigurationHelper.cs (5)

5-8: LGTM!

The method signature and initial setup are well-defined and follow best practices.

10-13: LGTM!

The configuration key check is important to handle cases where the key is not defined, and returning an empty list as a default behavior is reasonable.

18-52: LGTM!

The item processing loop is well-implemented and handles various scenarios effectively:

Skipping leading whitespace ensures proper item identification.

Finding the end of the item by locating the next comma is a reliable splitting approach.

Trimming trailing whitespace keeps the added items clean.

Adding the item only if it's not empty prevents unnecessary entries.

54-54: LGTM!

The method returns the populated list of safe items as expected.

5-55: Excellent work!

The GetConfiguredSafeItems method is a well-implemented utility for retrieving configured safe items. It handles various scenarios effectively and efficiently processes the configuration string to populate the list of safe items.

Some notable aspects:

Clear logic flow and structure

Handling of potential edge cases, such as missing configuration keys and whitespace in the item string

Efficient string processing using ReadOnlySpan<char> to avoid unnecessary allocations

Overall, the method is a valuable addition to the analyzer configuration helpers.

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Ecs1300Benchmarks.cs (3)

15-37: LGTM!

The SetupCompilation method is well-structured and serves its purpose of preparing the compilations before each benchmark iteration. The code generation logic is clear and concise, creating a controlled environment for the benchmarks.

The use of the [IterationSetup] attribute is appropriate, and the suppression of the "VSTHRD002:Avoid problematic synchronous waits" warning is justified with a valid explanation.

39-53: LGTM!

The Ecs1300WithDiagnostics method is well-implemented and serves its purpose of testing the analyzer's ability to produce diagnostics for the generated code files. The logic for retrieving the analysis result, asserting its validity, and obtaining the diagnostics is clear and concise.

The comparison of the diagnostics count with the expected count based on the Constants.NumberOfCodeFiles value is a good way to ensure that the analyzer is producing the expected number of diagnostics. The use of an InvalidOperationException with a descriptive error message is appropriate for handling the case when the count does not match.

55-69: LGTM!

The Ecs1300Baseline method is well-implemented and serves its purpose as a baseline benchmark. The logic for retrieving the analysis result, asserting its validity, and obtaining the diagnostics is clear and concise.

The check for the number of diagnostics being zero is a good way to ensure that no diagnostics are produced when analyzing the baseline compilation. The use of an InvalidOperationException with a descriptive error message is appropriate for handling the case when any diagnostics are found, indicating that the baseline behavior is not functioning as expected.

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.csproj (1)

27-31: LGTM!

The addition of the InternalsVisibleTo attribute is a good practice to enable comprehensive unit testing without exposing internal members to other assemblies. The use of the $(MSBuildProjectName) variable ensures that the test assembly name is dynamically set based on the current project name, following the convention of appending .Test to the main assembly name. The change is well-structured by encapsulating the attribute within a new ItemGroup.

docs/rules/ECS1300.md (7)

3-6: LGTM!

The "Cause" section provides a clear and concise explanation of the potential issues caused by initializing static fields with complex expressions or method calls that might throw exceptions. It effectively communicates the risks and highlights the need for this coding rule.

7-12: LGTM!

The "Rule Description" section effectively conveys the purpose and benefits of the rule. It provides a clear explanation of the issues the rule aims to address and the recommended approaches to mitigate them. The section sets the stage for the subsequent sections that provide more detailed guidance on how to fix violations and extend the rule.

13-48: LGTM!

The "How to fix violations" section offers practical guidance on addressing violations of the rule. It presents two approaches: using a static constructor and using Lazy<T> for lazy initialization. The code examples are well-structured, clear, and illustrate the recommended practices effectively. This section provides developers with the necessary information to apply the rule in their own code.

50-103: LGTM!

The "Extending the Rule with Safe Methods" section provides valuable information on extending the rule to accommodate project-specific needs. The instructions on configuring safe methods are clear and easy to follow, and the example configuration and explanation of its effect on the analyzer help developers understand how to apply this feature in their projects. The discussion on when to use this option and the precautions to take provides guidance on making informed decisions when extending the rule.

Tools

LanguageTool

[uncategorized] ~101-~101: Possible missing preposition found.
Context: ... the methods used. ### Precautions - Ensure Safety: Only add methods that are gua...

(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_TO)

Markdownlint

83-83: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

100-100: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

101-101: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD032, blanks-around-lists)

104-127: LGTM!

The "When to suppress warnings" section provides useful information for developers to make informed decisions on when and how to suppress warnings related to the rule. The guidance on scenarios where suppressing warnings might be appropriate helps developers strike a balance between adhering to the rule and accommodating specific cases where the rule may not be applicable. The instructions on suppressing warnings using preprocessor directives and configuration files are clear and practical.

129-147: LGTM!

The "Example of a violation" section provides a relevant and illustrative example of a violation of the rule. The description of the violation scenario is concise and highlights the potential issue, and the code example effectively demonstrates the violation. This section helps developers understand the types of code patterns that the rule aims to identify and address.

149-190: LGTM!

The "Example of how to fix" section provides two comprehensive examples of how to fix the violation presented in the previous section. The first example demonstrates moving the initialization logic into a static constructor and handling the potential IOException using a try-catch block, while the second example shows how to use Lazy<T> to defer the initialization until the value is needed. Both examples are clear, well-structured, and provide practical solutions that developers can easily understand and apply.

Tools

Markdownlint

190-190: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/AnalyzerConfigurationHelperTests.cs (11)

1-5: LGTM!

The using directives and namespace declaration are correct.

7-211: Comprehensive test coverage!

The AnalyzerConfigurationHelperTests class contains a comprehensive suite of test methods that cover various scenarios for the GetConfiguredSafeItems method. The test methods are well-structured, following the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern, and ensure the correctness of the method's behavior.

Some key observations:

The test methods cover scenarios such as configured items, no configured items, empty strings, whitespace-only strings, trimming whitespace, ignoring empty entries, handling duplicate entries, handling null global options, handling missing diagnostic IDs, and handling special characters.

The assertions in each test method verify the expected behavior of the GetConfiguredSafeItems method.

The CreateAnalyzerOptionsWithSafeItems helper method is used to create the necessary AnalyzerOptions instances for testing.

The TestAnalyzerConfigOptionsProvider and TestAnalyzerConfigOptions classes are used to provide custom analyzer configuration options for testing purposes.

Overall, the test class is well-designed and provides comprehensive coverage for the GetConfiguredSafeItems method.

9-24: Test method verifies the correct behavior!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods_ReturnsConfiguredItems test method is well-structured and verifies that the GetConfiguredSafeItems method returns the configured items correctly. The test method follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:

Arrange: It creates an AnalyzerOptions instance with configured safe items using the CreateAnalyzerOptionsWithSafeItems helper method.

Act: It calls the GetConfiguredSafeItems method with the created AnalyzerOptions and the diagnostic ID.

Assert: It verifies that the returned list of safe methods is not null, contains the expected number of items, and includes the configured method names.

The test method provides good coverage for the scenario where safe methods are configured correctly.

26-39: Test method handles the scenario when no items are configured!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods_ReturnsEmptyListWhenNoItemsConfigured test method is well-structured and verifies that the GetConfiguredSafeItems method returns an empty list when no items are configured. The test method follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:

Arrange: It creates an AnalyzerOptions instance without any configured safe items using the CreateAnalyzerOptionsWithSafeItems helper method.

Act: It calls the GetConfiguredSafeItems method with the created AnalyzerOptions and the diagnostic ID.

Assert: It verifies that the returned list of safe methods is not null and is empty.

The test method provides good coverage for the scenario where no safe methods are configured.

41-54: Test method handles empty string configuration!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods_HandlesEmptyString test method is well-structured and verifies that the GetConfiguredSafeItems method handles an empty string configuration correctly. The test method follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:

Arrange: It creates an AnalyzerOptions instance with an empty string as the safe items configuration using the CreateAnalyzerOptionsWithSafeItems helper method.

Act: It calls the GetConfiguredSafeItems method with the created AnalyzerOptions and the diagnostic ID.

Assert: It verifies that the returned list of safe methods is not null and is empty.

The test method provides good coverage for the scenario where the safe methods configuration is an empty string.

56-69: Test method handles whitespace-only configuration!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods_HandlesWhitespaceOnly test method is well-structured and verifies that the GetConfiguredSafeItems method handles a whitespace-only configuration correctly. The test method follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:

Arrange: It creates an AnalyzerOptions instance with a whitespace-only string as the safe items configuration using the CreateAnalyzerOptionsWithSafeItems helper method.

Act: It calls the GetConfiguredSafeItems method with the created AnalyzerOptions and the diagnostic ID.

Assert: It verifies that the returned list of safe methods is not null and is empty.

The test method provides good coverage for the scenario where the safe methods configuration contains only whitespace characters.

71-87: Test method verifies whitespace trimming!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods_TrimsWhitespaceAroundItems test method is well-structured and verifies that the GetConfiguredSafeItems method trims whitespace around the configured items. The test method follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:

Arrange: It creates an AnalyzerOptions instance with a configuration string that contains whitespace around the method names using the CreateAnalyzerOptionsWithSafeItems helper method.

Act: It calls the GetConfiguredSafeItems method with the created AnalyzerOptions and the diagnostic ID.

Assert: It verifies that the returned list of safe methods is not null, contains the expected number of items, and includes the trimmed method names.

The test method provides good coverage for the scenario where the safe methods configuration contains whitespace around the method names.

89-104: Test method verifies handling of empty entries!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods_IgnoresEmptyEntries test method is well-structured and verifies that the GetConfiguredSafeItems method ignores empty entries in the configuration. The test method follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:

Arrange: It creates an AnalyzerOptions instance with a configuration string that contains empty entries using the CreateAnalyzerOptionsWithSafeItems helper method.

Act: It calls the GetConfiguredSafeItems method with the created AnalyzerOptions and the diagnostic ID.

Assert: It verifies that the returned list of safe methods is not null, contains the expected number of items, and includes only the non-empty method names.

The test method provides good coverage for the scenario where the safe methods configuration contains empty entries.

106-122: Test method verifies handling of duplicate entries!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods_HandlesDuplicateEntries test method is well-structured and verifies that the GetConfiguredSafeItems method handles duplicate entries in the configuration. The test method follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:

Arrange: It creates an AnalyzerOptions instance with a configuration string that contains duplicate method names using the CreateAnalyzerOptionsWithSafeItems helper method.

Act: It calls the GetConfiguredSafeItems method with the created AnalyzerOptions and the diagnostic ID.

Assert: It verifies that the returned list of safe methods is not null, contains the expected total number of items, and includes the correct count of each duplicate method name.

The test method provides good coverage for the scenario where the safe methods configuration contains duplicate entries.

124-137: Test method handles null global options!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods_HandlesNullGlobalOptions test method is well-structured and verifies that the GetConfiguredSafeItems method handles null global options correctly. The test method follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:

Arrange: It creates an AnalyzerOptions instance without any global options using the AnalyzerOptions constructor directly.

Act: It calls the GetConfiguredSafeItems method with the created AnalyzerOptions and the diagnostic ID.

Assert: It verifies that the returned list of safe methods is not null and is empty.

The test method provides good coverage for the scenario where the global options are null.

139-152: Test method handles missing diagnostic ID!

The GetConfiguredSafeMethods_HandlesMissingDiagnosticId test method is well-structured and verifies that the GetConfiguredSafeItems method handles a missing diagnostic ID correctly. The test method follows the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:

Arrange: It creates an AnalyzerOptions instance with a configuration string using the CreateAnalyzerOptionsWithSafeItems helper method and defines a non-existent diagnostic ID.

Act: It calls the GetConfiguredSafeItems method with the created AnalyzerOptions and the non

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (2)

11-14: LGTM!

The updated XML documentation improves readability and consistency by using <see langword="true" /> and <see langword="false" /> for referencing language keywords. This is a good practice.

169-185: LGTM!

The new IsCompileTimeConstant method is a useful addition to the SemanticModelExtensions class. It correctly leverages the GetConstantValue method from the SemanticModel to check if a given SyntaxNode has a constant value. The logic is straightforward and the method returns a boolean indicating whether the constant value exists.

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs (17)

7-21: ****

This test method is skipped, so it does not need to be reviewed.

23-35: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a regular expression does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

37-48: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a simple constant does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

50-61: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a constant from another type does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

63-75: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a safe method call does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

77-94: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with an unsafe method call triggers a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

96-108: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with an object creation triggers a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

110-123: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field by referencing another static field in the same class does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

125-142: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field by referencing a static field in a base class does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

144-161: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a non-static field with a complex initializer does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

163-175: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static constant field does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

177-189: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that declaring a static field without an initializer does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

191-203: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a list collection initializer containing simple values does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

205-216: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a hash set collection initializer containing simple values does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

218-234: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a hash set constructor and collection initializer containing simple values does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

236-249: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a complex list initialization containing a method call triggers a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

251-266: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a simple dictionary initialization containing simple key-value pairs does not trigger a diagnostic. The code under test looks good.

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs (11)

1-9: LGTM!

The StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer class is correctly declared as public and inherits from DiagnosticAnalyzer. The DiagnosticAnalyzer attribute is correctly applied, specifying the C# language.

119-119: LGTM!

The SupportedDiagnostics property is correctly declared as public and overrides the base class property. It returns an ImmutableArray of DiagnosticDescriptor, which is the expected return type. The property returns an ImmutableArray containing the Rule field, which is correctly initialized.

122-144: LGTM!

The Initialize method is correctly declared as public and overrides the base class method. It enables concurrent execution and configures generated code analysis, which is a good practice for performance and thread-safety.

The method registers a compilation start action to read configuration options and create a local copy of SafeItems with the configuration values applied. It also registers a syntax node action to analyze field declarations, passing the safeItems set to the AnalyzeFieldDeclaration method.

146-191: LGTM!

The AnalyzeFieldDeclaration method is correctly declared as private and static. It checks if the node is a FieldDeclarationSyntax and returns if not, which is a good practice to avoid unnecessary processing.

The method checks for the static modifier and ignores constants, which is correct based on the analyzer's purpose. It iterates through variable declarations and checks if there is an initializer, which is necessary to analyze the initializer.

The method determines if the initializer is complex or may throw exceptions using the IsComplexInitializer method, which is a key part of the analyzer's logic. It reports a diagnostic if the initializer is complex or may throw exceptions, which is the expected behavior of the analyzer.

193-254: LGTM!

The IsComplexInitializer method is correctly declared as private and static. It checks if the initializer is a safe symbol using the IsSafeSymbol method, which is a good practice to avoid unnecessary processing.

The method handles various expression types using a switch statement, which enhances readability and maintainability. It checks if the expression is a compile-time constant, which is a key part of determining if the initializer is complex or may throw exceptions.

256-264: LGTM!

The IsNameOfExpression method is correctly declared as private and static. It checks if the expression is an IdentifierNameSyntax and if the identifier text is "nameof", which is a correct way to identify a nameof expression.

266-279: LGTM!

The IsSafeField method is correctly declared as private and static. It allows static fields from the System namespace, which is a reasonable assumption for safe fields.

281-306: LGTM!

The IsSafeMemberAccess method is correctly declared as private and static. It handles property symbols, field symbols, and property getter method symbols, which covers the relevant cases for member access.

The method calls the IsSafeProperty and IsSafeField methods to determine if the member access is safe, which is a good practice to delegate the safety checks to separate methods.

308-333: LGTM!

The IsSafeMethodCall method is correctly declared as private and static. It checks if the symbol is an IMethodSymbol and returns false if not, which is a good practice to avoid unnecessary processing.

The method checks if all arguments are compile-time constants, which is a key part of determining if the method call is safe.

335-364: LGTM!

The IsSafeProperty method is correctly declared as private and static. It checks if the property is in the safeItems set, which is a good practice to allow additional safe properties to be configured.

The method allows static properties from the System namespace, which is a reasonable assumption for safe properties. It also checks if the containing type is considered safe for instance properties, which is a good practice to ensure the safety of instance properties.

366-385: LGTM!

The IsSimpleArrayCreation method is correctly declared as private and static. It checks if the type is an array type and if the initializer is not null, which is a good practice to avoid unnecessary processing.

The method checks if all initializer expressions are simple using the IsSimpleExpression method, which is a key part of determining if the array creation is simple.

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md

codacy-production · 2024-09-18T19:06:27Z

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ -0.96% (target: -1.00%)	✅ 84.44%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (`4df417e`)	948	838	88.40%
Head commit (`9c05291`)	1250 (+302)	1093 (+255)	87.44% (-0.96%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#66)	302	255	84.44%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings Change summary preferences

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 2

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 26583c1 and f39ba6f.

Files selected for processing (4)

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (1 hunks)
src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
src/tools/Dogfood/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (2 hunks)
tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs (1 hunks)

Additional context used

Path-based instructions (2)

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.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/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.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 not posted (33)

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs (19)

7-21: ****

This test method is skipped, so it does not need to be reviewed.

23-35: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a regular expression does not trigger a diagnostic.

37-48: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a simple constant does not trigger a diagnostic.

50-61: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a constant from another type does not trigger a diagnostic.

63-75: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a safe method call does not trigger a diagnostic.

77-94: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with an unsafe method call triggers a diagnostic with the correct ID.

110-123: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field by referencing another static field in the same class does not trigger a diagnostic.

125-142: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field by referencing a static field in a base class does not trigger a diagnostic.

144-161: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a non-static field with a complex initializer does not trigger a diagnostic.

163-175: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static constant field does not trigger a diagnostic.

177-189: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that a static field without an initializer does not trigger a diagnostic.

191-203: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a list collection initializer does not trigger a diagnostic.

205-216: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a hash set collection initializer does not trigger a diagnostic.

218-234: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a hash set constructor and collection initializer does not trigger a diagnostic.

236-249: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a complex list initialization triggers a diagnostic with the correct ID.

251-266: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a simple dictionary initialization does not trigger a diagnostic.

268-286: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a complex dictionary initialization triggers a diagnostic with the correct ID.

288-300: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a lambda expression triggers a diagnostic with the correct ID.

302-314: LGTM!

The test method correctly verifies that initializing a static field with a nameof expression does not trigger a diagnostic.

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs (11)

13-119: Fields look good!

The private static readonly fields are properly defined with meaningful names and correct access modifiers. The DiagnosticId field is appropriately marked with a pragma to disable a specific warning. The SafeItems field is initialized with a comprehensive set of safe method names that are exempt from the diagnostic rule.

122-122: Property is implemented correctly!

The SupportedDiagnostics property correctly overrides the base class property and returns an immutable array containing the Rule field, which is a good practice for thread safety.

125-147: Analyzer initialization looks good!

The Initialize method correctly overrides the base class method and sets up the analyzer appropriately. Enabling concurrent execution and disabling generated code analysis are good practices for performance. Registering actions to read configuration options and analyze field declarations is the proper way to initialize the analyzer.

149-194: Field declaration analysis is implemented correctly!

The AnalyzeFieldDeclaration method properly handles the syntax node analysis context. It appropriately checks for the static modifier and ignores constants. Iterating through variable declarators and checking initializers for complexity is the correct approach. Reporting diagnostics for complex initializers aligns with the analyzer's purpose.

196-257: Initializer complexity determination is implemented correctly!

The IsComplexInitializer method correctly determines the complexity of initializers. Using a switch statement to handle different expression types enhances readability and maintainability. Identifying simple initializers, handling invocations, and recursively checking nested expressions is the appropriate approach. Considering non-compile-time constant expressions as complex aligns with the analyzer's purpose.

259-268: nameof expression check is implemented correctly!

The IsNameOfExpression method correctly identifies nameof expressions by comparing the identifier name with the string "nameof". The implementation is straightforward and appropriate.

270-284: Field safety check is implemented correctly!

The IsSafeField method correctly determines the safety of field symbols by allowing static fields from the System namespace. The implementation aligns with the analyzer's purpose.

286-311: Member access safety check is implemented correctly!

The IsSafeMemberAccess method correctly determines the safety of member access expressions. It appropriately handles different symbol types (properties, fields, getter methods) and uses the IsSafeProperty and IsSafeField methods for safety checks. The implementation is well-structured and aligns with the analyzer's purpose.

340-344: Property safety check is implemented correctly!

The IsSafeProperty method correctly determines the safety of property symbols by using the safeItems set. The implementation is straightforward and aligns with the analyzer's purpose.

346-365: Array creation simplicity check is implemented correctly!

The IsSimpleArrayCreation method correctly determines the simplicity of array creation expressions. It appropriately verifies the array type and initializer, and recursively checks the simplicity of initializer expressions. The implementation is well-structured and aligns with the analyzer's purpose.

367-414: Collection initialization simplicity check is implemented correctly!

The IsSimpleCollectionInitialization method correctly determines the simplicity of collection initialization expressions. It appropriately verifies the simplicity of constructor arguments and recursively checks the simplicity of collection initializer expressions. The implementation is well-structured and handles different scenarios effectively.

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (1)

755-755: Allowing suppression of "Use method chaining" rule is reasonable.

Changing IsEverSuppressed from false to true for rule RCS1201 allows it to be suppressed using #pragma warning disable RCS1201.

Since method chaining is a coding style preference, giving developers the flexibility to disable this rule in specific cases where they don't want to use method chaining seems appropriate.

src/tools/Dogfood/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (2)

310-310: Looks good!

The new rule ECS1300 for enforcing proper initialization of static class members has been added with the correct properties.

765-765: Change looks fine.

Modifying the IsEverSuppressed property from false to true for rule RCS1201 is acceptable. It allows suppressing the "Use method chaining" rule when required.

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 3

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between f39ba6f and 9c05291.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

docs/rules/ECS1300.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

docs/rules/ECS1300.md

[uncategorized] ~15-~15: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...plex initialization logic into a static constructor where you can handle exceptions and con...

(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)

🪛 Markdownlint

docs/rules/ECS1300.md

83-83: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

191-191: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

🔇 Additional comments (6)

docs/rules/ECS1300.md (6)

1-5: LGTM: Clear introduction and cause explanation.

The title and rule number are well-defined, and the cause section effectively explains the problem of static field initialization potentially causing runtime errors.

7-11: LGTM: Comprehensive rule description.

The rule description effectively communicates the risks associated with improper static field initialization and aligns well with the PR objectives.

50-104: LGTM: Comprehensive guide for extending the rule.

This section provides clear and detailed instructions for customizing safe methods using an EditorConfig file. The example configuration, explanation of its effect on the analyzer, and the precautions and use cases offer valuable guidance for users.

🧰 Tools

🪛 Markdownlint

83-83: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

105-128: LGTM: Clear guidance on warning suppression.

This section provides appropriate guidance on when to suppress warnings and clear instructions for doing so using both preprocessor directives and configuration files.

130-148: LGTM: Clear example of a rule violation.

The example effectively demonstrates a common violation scenario with a clear and relevant code example.

1-191: Excellent documentation for the new ECS1300 rule.

This document provides a comprehensive explanation of the new ECS1300 rule, covering all necessary aspects including the cause, description, how to fix violations, extending the rule, when to suppress warnings, and examples. The content aligns well with the PR objectives and effectively communicates the importance of proper static class member initialization.

The minor suggestions provided in the previous comments will further improve the document's clarity and formatting. Overall, this is a high-quality addition to the project's documentation.

🧰 Tools

🪛 LanguageTool

[uncategorized] ~15-~15: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...plex initialization logic into a static constructor where you can handle exceptions and con...

(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)

🪛 Markdownlint

83-83: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines

(MD022, blanks-around-headings)

191-191: null
Files should end with a single newline character

(MD047, single-trailing-newline)

docs/rules/ECS1300.md

Items resolved

Add base code for ECS1300

ce40605

rjmurillo added this to the vNext milestone Sep 17, 2024

rjmurillo self-assigned this Sep 17, 2024

rjmurillo added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request analyzers releasable labels Sep 17, 2024

coderabbitai bot requested changes Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

rjmurillo added 2 commits September 17, 2024 12:59

Fix static analysis warnings

1077839

Add word to shared dictionary

26a8d9a

rjmurillo force-pushed the feature/item-13 branch from 987ed5a to 26a8d9a Compare September 17, 2024 20:00

coderabbitai bot reviewed Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

rjmurillo added 10 commits September 17, 2024 13:02

Set correct rule suppression

04ecfba

Add rules to dogfood project

9b1fb5a

Add capability to set symbols and types on safe list

31a0189

Reduce lookups from SemanticModel

103878a

Plumb through CancellationToken

2d2f144

Add support for RegEx and Version types

3953b6c

Add support for binary expressions (for divisible math)

d4197e0

Add basic benchmark for ECS1300

45f596e

Enable parallelism (was off for debugging)

1ae0715

Update to use a local immutable hashset of items rather than mutable …

26583c1

…global state

coderabbitai bot requested changes Sep 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/AnalyzerReleases.Unshipped.md Show resolved Hide resolved

rjmurillo added 4 commits September 18, 2024 08:28

Add symbol check for safety while analyzing collection init

79cc6bc

Use Stringbuilder to reduce string overhead (slightly)

245fe96

Fix static analysis warnings

2a9bb2e

Update SquiggleCop baselines

f39ba6f

coderabbitai bot requested changes Sep 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

tests/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers.Tests/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzerTests.cs Show resolved Hide resolved

src/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/StaticClassMemberInitializationAnalyzer.cs Show resolved Hide resolved

rjmurillo changed the title ~~Item 13: Use proper initialization for static class members~~ Add Item 13: Use proper initialization for static class members Sep 26, 2024

rjmurillo marked this pull request as ready for review September 26, 2024 18:02

Add break from header to content

9c05291

rjmurillo enabled auto-merge (squash) September 26, 2024 18:08

coderabbitai bot previously requested changes Sep 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

docs/rules/ECS1300.md Show resolved Hide resolved

docs/rules/ECS1300.md Show resolved Hide resolved

docs/rules/ECS1300.md Show resolved Hide resolved

rjmurillo merged commit 9144e7c into main Sep 26, 2024
11 checks passed

rjmurillo deleted the feature/item-13 branch September 26, 2024 18:51

coderabbitai bot approved these changes Sep 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Sep 27, 2024

Add Item 14: Minimize initialization logic #70

Merged

coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Dec 3, 2024

Update SDK version to 9.0.100 #76

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add Item 13: Use proper initialization for static class members #66

Add Item 13: Use proper initialization for static class members #66

rjmurillo commented Sep 17, 2024 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Chat

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

Documentation and Community

coderabbitai bot left a comment

coderabbitai bot left a comment

coderabbitai bot left a comment

codacy-production bot commented Sep 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai bot left a comment

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Add Item 13: Use proper initialization for static class members #66

Add Item 13: Use proper initialization for static class members #66

Conversation

rjmurillo commented Sep 17, 2024 • edited by coderabbitai bot Loading

Changes

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 17, 2024 • edited Loading

Walkthrough

Changes

Assessment against linked issues

Chat

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

Documentation and Community

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codacy-production bot commented Sep 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

See your quality gate settings Change summary preferences

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rjmurillo commented Sep 17, 2024 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

codacy-production bot commented Sep 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading