Refactor SetupShouldOnlyBeUsedForOverridableMembersAnalyzer to IOperation #340
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@rjmurillo has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 19 minutes and 1 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request focuses on converting the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Coverage summary from CodacySee diff coverage on Codacy
Coverage variation details
Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: Diff coverage details
Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: See your quality gate settings Change summary preferencesCodacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs(3 hunks)src/Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml(1 hunks)src/Common/IOperationExtensions.cs(1 hunks)src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs(1 hunks)tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzerTests.cs(1 hunks)tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (5)
src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
Pattern **/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.
I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs (1)
Pattern **/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.
I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzerTests.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/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.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/Common/IOperationExtensions.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.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-24.04-arm)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
🔇 Additional comments (21)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs (15)
2-2: Import usage is appropriate.
No issues found with referencingMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Operations; it is necessary for working with the operation-based analyzer.
32-35: Operation-based analysis registration looks correct.
Switching toRegisterOperationAction(AnalyzeInvocation, OperationKind.Invocation)appears to follow best practices for Roslyn analyzers focusing on semantic/operation-level checks.
44-44: Safety check against a nullSemanticModel.
This is a valid safeguard; no issues found.
49-50: Instantiating known symbols and retrieving the target method.
No issues here; consistent with typical Roslyn practices.
52-53: Verifying if the target method is a Moq setup method.
The check is clear and prevents false positives.
58-62: Retrieving the mocked member symbol and handling null.
This ensures we gracefully skip if no analyzable member is found.
67-68: Interface check is logically sound.
Interfaces are treated as overridable in Moq’s context, so skipping diagnostic is correct.
73-74: Switch statement on symbol type is cleanly structured.
No immediate concerns; property vs. method breakdown is standard.
77-77: Skipping diagnostic forTask<T>.Resultis correct for Moq usage.
No issues identified; logic is coherent.
89-89: Method symbol check for overridability or Task return.
Well aligned with Moq's requirements.
97-100: Default case excludes non-property/non-method from diagnostic.
This prevents false-positive diagnostics for other symbol types.
103-107: Diagnostic reporting.
Reporting oninvocationOperation.Syntaxis appropriate, as it best reflects the call site.
111-115: Helper method documentation is clear.
Meaningful XML comments improve maintainability.
116-139: Extracting the mocked member through the first lambda argument.
This approach works well for common Moq patterns.
Consider verifying if multiple arguments or more complex lambda forms might require additional checks.Would you like a script to search for multi-argument invocations in the codebase to ensure no missed edge cases?
141-144:IsTaskResultPropertyis well-scoped to detectTask<T>.Result.
No bugs found; method handles the fallback scenario ifTask<T>is not resolved.tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs (1)
32-32: New methodGenericTaskAsyncaligns with test requirements.
It provides a validTask<string>scenario for analyzer testing. No issues found.src/Common/IOperationExtensions.cs (3)
21-35: Symbol retrieval logic is straightforward but focused.
Only properties and method invocations are retrieved. If extending support (e.g., fields, events) becomes necessary, this is easy to adapt.
37-47: Extracting referenced member symbol from lambda blocks vs. expression lambdas.
This logic covers common Moq usage patterns; no concurrency or edge-case errors spotted.
49-59: Unwrapping implicit conversions.
Peeling off trivial conversions is correct for Moq. For explicit conversions, the method properly stops to avoid misinterpretation.tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzerTests.cs (1)
11-13: Verify test coverage for edge cases.The test data covers basic scenarios for non-overridable members, but there might be edge cases missing:
- Explicit interface implementations
- Generic methods
- Nested class members
- Protected members
Let's verify if there are any edge cases in the codebase that should be covered:
src/Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (1)
758-758: LGTM! Allowing suppression of param element warnings.The change to allow suppression of RCS1141 warnings gives developers more flexibility in managing documentation requirements.
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
![codeclimate[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/9403?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs(2 hunks)src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
Pattern **/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.
I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.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.
🪛 GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-24.04-arm)
src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs
[failure] 116-116:
Use trailing comma in multi-line initializers (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1413.md)
[failure] 116-116:
Use trailing comma in multi-line initializers (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1413.md)
[failure] 116-116:
Use trailing comma in multi-line initializers (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1413.md)
[failure] 116-116:
Use trailing comma in multi-line initializers (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1413.md)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
🔇 Additional comments (23)
src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
112-118: Check for explicit interface implementations.Currently, the switch expression doesn’t account for members declared as explicit interface implementations (e.g.,
IMethodSymbol { IsExplicitInterfaceImplementation: true }). Depending on your analyzer’s requirements, these members might need special handling.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-24.04-arm)
[failure] 116-116:
Use trailing comma in multi-line initializers (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1413.md)
[failure] 116-116:
Use trailing comma in multi-line initializers (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1413.md)
[failure] 116-116:
Use trailing comma in multi-line initializers (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1413.md)
[failure] 116-116:
Use trailing comma in multi-line initializers (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1413.md)src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs (22)
2-2: Import statement looks good.Adding
using Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Operations;is necessary for IOperation references and seems appropriate.
32-35: Good transition to operation-based analysis.Registering an operation action on
IInvocationOperationaligns with the refactor objective to useIOperation.
39-39: Refactor suggestion: consider reducing method size.We previously noted that if this method grows further, it may be split into helper functions for maintainability.
41-42: Consider pattern matching for cleaner code.Casting
context.OperationtoIInvocationOperationis fine, but the prior review recommended using pattern matching for style consistency.
44-44: Null check is appropriate.Returning early when
semanticModelis null avoids unnecessary processing.
49-51: Local variable assignments are clear.Storing
knownSymbolsandtargetMethodlocally improves readability.
52-53: Moq setup method check is correct.Filtering out non-setup calls early helps prevent unnecessary analysis.
58-62: Graceful handling of a null mocked member symbol.Skipping analysis when the symbol is unknown avoids false positives.
67-68: Excluding interface members is valid.Interface members are inherently overridable, so returning early is consistent with the target logic.
73-74: Proper check before diagnosing.Calling
IsPropertyOrMethodencapsulates logic for properties and methods neatly.
79-85: Diagnostic reporting is appropriately targeted.The diagnostic is attached to the invocation syntax, aligning with analyzer best practices.
86-87: Method definition is straightforward.No immediate concerns with the signature of
IsPropertyOrMethod.
88-100: Property checks are appropriate.The code correctly detects special Task-related members and uses
IsOverridable().
104-104: Break statement is clear.No issues; the switch control flow is properly terminated.
108-108: Method condition is well-handled.Simple direct return for the method case.
112-115: Default case ensures no diagnostic for unexpected symbol types.Opting out early is a reasonable fallback.
118-119: Correct final return.The switch covers all property/method scenarios before returning false here.
120-120: Helper method definition is clear.
TryGetMockedMemberSymbolis a solid approach for extracting the symbol.
121-126: Documentation is helpful.Properly explains the method’s purpose and return conditions.
127-147: Lambda unwrapping logic is well-organized.Unwrapping conversions and retrieving the reference symbol from the lambda is a strong approach.
148-149: Fallback handling is safe.Returning null for unsupported patterns avoids false positives.
Line range hint
152-178: Task result property checks appear correct.The method focuses specifically on
ResultandTask<T>alignment, which meets Moq usage requirements.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs (1)
39-44: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)Consider refactoring the method if it grows larger
The approach of handing off analysis toAnalyzeInvocationis clean. If this method continues to grow, you might split out specialized helper methods for clarity.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs(2 hunks)src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
Pattern **/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.
I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.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.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-24.04-arm)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
112-118: Revisit handling of explicit interface implementations
Currently, this logic returnstrueif the symbol's containing type is an interface, even for explicit interface implementations that may not be “overridable” in a practical sense. This concern was noted previously. If that scenario matters in your codebase, consider refining the check to exclude symbols withIsExplicitInterfaceImplementationset totrue.Here’s a script to see if explicit interface implementations appear in your codebase:
#!/bin/bash # Searching for explicit interface implementations usage across .cs files ast-grep --pattern $'$_.InterfaceMembers: [$$$]'src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs (9)
32-35: Good transition to IOperation registration
The switch to registering an operation action forInvocationOperationimproves analyzer precision and clarity. No issues found here.
46-48: Null-check for SemanticModel
The null-check forSemanticModelis a sensible safeguard; no concerns here.
53-57: Robust check for Moq Setup method
Verifying the target method is a Moq Setup call ensures the analyzer focuses on relevant invocations only. Looks correct.
62-66: Retrieve the mocked member symbol
Extracting the member symbol early clarifies subsequent checks. This is a concise and maintainable approach.
77-78: Check if property or method
You defensively callIsPropertyOrMethodto skip diagnostics for legitimate or automatically allowed cases. Good approach.
83-89: Clear diagnostic reporting
Reporting the diagnostic on the invocation location is straightforward and keeps it relevant to the offending setup call.
91-123: Well-structured property/method checks
This method correctly branches for properties vs. methods and checks for overridability or task-returning behavior. No bugs found.
156-158: Straightforward Task.Result check
The logic for identifying theResultproperty onTask<T>is concise and correct.
125-153: Versatile handling of the Setup argument
Extracting the first argument as a lambda and unwrapping conversions is a robust approach. Consider how to handle unexpected argument structures (e.g., multi-argument setups or nested expressions) in future expansions.✅ Verification successful
Review of Setup Argument Handling in Analyzer
After verifying the codebase:
- The implementation in
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.csfocuses on extracting the lambda expression from the first argument of a Setup call, which is the prevalent pattern in production.- Our regex search indicates that multi-argument Setup usages appear only in test files (e.g., in
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/NoMethodsInPropertySetupAnalyzerTests.cs), not in production code.- While future enhancements might consider handling more complex or nested expressions, the current approach is appropriate based on observed usage.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for potential multi-argument Setup usages throughout the codebase. rg --case-sensitive --context 3 'Setup\s*\(.*\,'Length of output: 143
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Re-run the search for multi-argument Setup usages with corrected regex escaping. rg --pcre2 --case-sensitive --context 3 'Setup\\s*\\(.*,'Length of output: 132
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Re-run the search for multi-argument Setup usages with a simplified pattern that avoids nested group issues. rg --pcre2 --case-sensitive --context 3 'Setup\s*\([^)]*,'Length of output: 755
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There's a slight variation to the version I submitted, this makes it match the same naming convention for ease of discovery and adds XML documentation explaining what it does
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs(2 hunks)src/Common/IOperationExtensions.cs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.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/Common/IOperationExtensions.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.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-24.04-arm)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
🔇 Additional comments (15)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs (11)
2-2: Trivial import statement.No issues here—this
usingis necessary for working withIOperation.
32-32: Good job registering the operation action.This ensures the analyzer runs on
IInvocationOperationnodes as intended.
36-36: Consider splitting upAnalyzeInvocationmethod.This feedback has already been provided on a previous commit. Flagging as a repeated comment.
38-41: Early return logic looks solid.No potential issues identified in this segment; returning if we don't have an
IInvocationOperationis correct.
43-45: No special issues found.This seems to be a straightforward semantic model null check.
50-54: Moq setup detection is correct.Verifying the target method as a Moq
Setupcall is a good approach; no bugs noticed.
59-63: Member symbol resolution is good.Calling
TryGetMockedMemberSymbolensures we guard against missing or invalid expressions.
68-69: Interface handling note.Skipping interface members here was previously discussed. Retaining an early return for interface members is valid if the design is to treat them as “overridable.”
80-86: Diagnostic creation logic looks good.Thank you for tying the diagnostic to the current invocation syntax node. This ensures the diagnostic message is accurately highlighted.
122-150: Symbol extraction logic appears safe and thorough.The approach of unwrapping conversions and extracting symbols from the first argument is in line with typical Moq usage. No obvious edge cases or off-by-one errors detected here.
153-153: Task.Result logic is correct.Properly checks if
{T}.Resultis fromTask<T>, then excludes it from diagnostics, aligning with Moq’s allowances.src/Common/IOperationExtensions.cs (4)
21-21: No significant changes.This line appears to be a minor or whitespace adjustment.
22-37: Implicit conversion unwrapping looks correct.The loop properly peels off implicit conversions, preventing accidental misses of the underlying operation. No concurrency or off-by-one concerns noted.
38-38: Blank line or minor spacing modification.No comments needed.
53-64: Verify handling of multiple statements in block lambdas.Currently, if a block lambda has more than one statement, we only consider the first. For instance:
mock.Setup(x => { x.Foo(); return x.Bar; });Only the first statement
x.Foo()symbol is inspected ifOperations[0]is used. If that’s intentional, OK; otherwise, you may want to handle or warn about multi-statement blocks.Would you like a proposed test scenario to confirm the analyzer’s behavior for multi-statement lambdas?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/Common/IOperationExtensions.cs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
src/Common/IOperationExtensions.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.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
112-119: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionEnhance Overridability Check in Switch Expression
The new implementation using a switch expression is much clearer; however, it does not account for explicit interface implementations, which are non-overridable. Consider adding explicit patterns such as:- IMethodSymbol { IsStatic: true } or IPropertySymbol { IsStatic: true } => false, + IMethodSymbol { IsStatic: true } or IPropertySymbol { IsStatic: true } + or IMethodSymbol { IsExplicitInterfaceImplementation: true } or IPropertySymbol { IsExplicitInterfaceImplementation: true } => false,Also, adding a trailing comma after the final case helps maintain style consistency per SA1413 guidelines.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs(2 hunks)src/Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs(1 hunks)src/Common/IOperationExtensions.cs(1 hunks)src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs(1 hunks)src/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (5)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.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/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
Pattern **/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.
I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/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/Common/IOperationExtensions.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/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.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.
🪛 GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-24.04-arm)
src/Common/IOperationExtensions.cs
[failure] 25-25:
XML comment has badly formed XML -- 'Expected '>' or '/>' to close tag 'Func'.'
[failure] 25-25:
XML comment has badly formed XML -- 'An identifier was expected.'
[failure] 25-25:
XML comment has badly formed XML -- 'The character(s) '.' cannot be used at this location.'
[failure] 25-25:
XML comment has badly formed XML -- 'An identifier was expected.'
[failure] 25-25:
XML comment has badly formed XML -- 'The character(s) '.' cannot be used at this location.'
[failure] 26-26:
XML comment has badly formed XML -- 'End tag 'summary' does not match the start tag ''.'
[failure] 29-29:
XML comment has badly formed XML -- 'Expected an end tag for element ''.'
[failure] 29-29:
XML comment has badly formed XML -- 'Expected an end tag for element 'summary'.'
[failure] 29-29:
The documentation for parameter 'operation' is missing (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1611.md)
[failure] 29-29:
Element return value should be documented (https://github.com/DotNetAnalyzers/StyleCopAnalyzers/blob/master/documentation/SA1615.md)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/Analyzers/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzer.cs (3)
2-2: No concerns about this import.
AddingMicrosoft.CodeAnalysis.Operationsis necessary for the new operation-based analysis.
32-32: Operation-based analysis registration looks good.
This correctly replaces syntax-based registration with an operation-based approach forInvocationOperation.
36-36: Consider splitting upAnalyzeInvocationas previously suggested.
This method can grow large over time. Splitting it into smaller helper methods may improve maintainability.src/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (1)
24-24: Moq setup check logic looks correct.
This line properly delegates the “IsMoqSetupMethod” check to the symbol itself.src/Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs (1)
Line range hint
53-57: Refactor Check: Use Symbol Extension for Moq Setup Method
The updated conditional now directly leveragesmemberAccessSymbolInfo.Symbol.IsMoqSetupMethod(knownSymbols), which streamlines the logic by eliminating the extra context parameter. This is in line with our refactoring goals and should correctly identify the setup method. Please verify that the extension method’s logic comprehensively covers all Moq setup scenarios.src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (1)
121-123: Verify Moq Setup Method Detection
The newIsMoqSetupMethodmethod succinctly checks whether a symbol is an instance ofknownSymbols.Mock1Setupand is a generic method. This change appears correct; please ensure that theknownSymbols.Mock1Setupis properly initialized so that all valid Moq setup methods are detected.
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 97be0de and detected 2 issues on this pull request. Here's the issue category breakdown:
View more on Code Climate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 6 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
Files not reviewed (2)
- src/Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml: Evaluated as low risk
- src/Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs: Evaluated as low risk
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)
src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs:117
- The condition 'symbol is { IsOverride: true, IsSealed: false }' is redundant because 'symbol.IsSealed' is already checked before. Consider removing the redundant check.
(symbol.IsVirtual || symbol.IsAbstract || symbol is { IsOverride: true, IsSealed: false })
rjmurillo
deleted the
feature/refactor-setupshouldonlybeusedforoverridablemembers-to-IOperation
branch
Updates
SetupShouldOnlyBeUsedForOverridableMembersAnalyzerto useIOperationpattern found in explainer #118With the IOperation implementation, the symbol specificity is broader on the detected text span, so the test cases were updated to reflect that with a marker move to the beginning and end of the inserted symbol.
Additional related updates include:
Fixes #339