Add IOperation to DiagnosticExtensions and clean up overloads #233
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications across several analyzer classes in the Changes
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 (
|
![qlty-cloud-legacy[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/9403?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit c8c5dee and detected 5 issues on this pull request. Here's the issue category breakdown:
View more on Code Climate. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range comments (5)
src/Moq.Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs (2)
Line range hint
23-24: Consider addressing the suppressed maintainability warning.The suppression message references issue #90 for tracking the refactoring. Consider breaking down the
Analyzemethod into smaller, focused methods to improve maintainability. Here's a suggested structure:- private static void Analyze(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context) + private static void Analyze(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context) + { + if (ShouldSkipAnalysis(context)) + return; + + var setupInvocation = (InvocationExpressionSyntax)context.Node; + var mockedMember = GetMockedMember(context, setupInvocation); + if (mockedMember == null) + return; + + if (IsInvalidAsyncSetup(context, mockedMember)) + { + ReportDiagnostic(context, mockedMember); + } + } + + private static bool ShouldSkipAnalysis(SyntaxNodeAnalysisContext context) + { + var moqAssembly = context.Compilation.ReferencedAssemblyNames + .FirstOrDefault(a => a.Name.Equals("Moq", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)); + return moqAssembly != null && moqAssembly.Version >= new Version(4, 16, 0); + }
Line range hint
25-31: Document why analysis is skipped for Moq 4.16.0+.The code skips analysis for Moq 4.16.0 or later, but it's not clear why. Consider adding a comment explaining if this issue was fixed in that version or if there's another reason for skipping the analysis.
+ // Skip analysis for Moq 4.16.0 or later as this issue was fixed in that version + // See: [link to relevant Moq issue/PR] if (moqAssembly != null && moqAssembly.Version >= new Version(4, 16, 0)) { return; }src/Moq.Analyzers/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodAnalyzer.cs (1)
Line range hint
54-56: Add null check for setupInvocationThe code dereferences
setupInvocationwithout checking if it's null, which could cause a NullReferenceException.Apply this fix:
- InvocationExpressionSyntax? mockedMethodInvocation = setupInvocation.FindMockedMethodInvocationFromSetupMethod(); + if (setupInvocation == null) return; + InvocationExpressionSyntax? mockedMethodInvocation = setupInvocation.FindMockedMethodInvocationFromSetupMethod();src/Moq.Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (2)
Line range hint
160-164: Consider enhancing the diagnostic message format.While the refactoring to simplify diagnostic creation is good, the diagnostic message could be more specific about the provided arguments to help developers quickly identify the issue.
Consider formatting the arguments list for better readability in the diagnostic message:
- Diagnostic? diagnostic = argumentList?.CreateDiagnostic(InterfaceMustNotHaveConstructorParameters, argumentList); + string formattedArgs = string.Join(", ", arguments.Select(arg => arg.ToString())); + Diagnostic? diagnostic = argumentList?.CreateDiagnostic(InterfaceMustNotHaveConstructorParameters, formattedArgs);
Line range hint
335-341: Fix bug in optional parameters check.There's a logical issue in the constructor matching condition that could cause false negatives when matching constructors with all optional parameters. The current condition can never be true due to contradictory requirements.
Apply this fix to correctly handle constructors with all optional parameters:
- if (arguments.Length <= requiredParameters - && arguments.Length == 0 - && requiredParameters == 0 - && fixedParametersCount != 0) + if (arguments.Length == 0 && requiredParameters == 0)This simplified condition correctly handles the case where:
- No arguments are provided (
arguments.Length == 0)- All parameters are optional (
requiredParameters == 0)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodAnalyzer.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticExtensions.cs (3 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (2 hunks)
- src/Moq.Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (5)
src/Moq.Analyzers/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodAnalyzer.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticExtensions.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Moq.Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.I suspect the bugs are related to:
- Incorrect handling of edge cases
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
- Unexpected data types
- Uncaught exceptions
- Concurrency issues
- Improper configuration settings
To diagnose:
- Review the code carefully and systematically
- Trace the relevant code paths
- Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
- Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
- Run the code mentally with example inputs
- Think about interactions between components
When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:
- File path and line number(s)
- Description of the issue and why it's a bug
- Example input that would trigger the bug
- Suggestions for how to fix it
After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.
I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.
src/Moq.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.
🔇 Additional comments (12)
src/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticExtensions.cs (3)
8-8: LGTM! Changes to SyntaxNode overloads are well-structured.The standardization of using
nullinstead of empty collections simplifies the code while maintaining the same behavior. The method chaining is correct and preserves the diagnostic creation hierarchy.Also applies to: 14-14, 21-27
32-32: LGTM! Location overloads maintain proper fallback behavior.The changes consistently use
nullfor optional parameters while preserving the important fallback toLocation.Nonefor non-source locations.Also applies to: 38-38, 52-52
55-71: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionConsider adding null checks and documentation for IOperation overloads.
While the implementation follows the established pattern, there are a few potential improvements:
- The code should handle cases where
operationoroperation.Syntaxis null- The relationship between
IOperationand its underlyingSyntaxshould be documentedConsider applying these changes:
public static Diagnostic CreateDiagnostic( this IOperation operation, DiagnosticDescriptor rule, IEnumerable<Location>? additionalLocations, ImmutableDictionary<string, string?>? properties, - params object?[]? messageArgs) => operation.Syntax.CreateDiagnostic(rule, additionalLocations, properties, messageArgs); + params object?[]? messageArgs) +{ + if (operation is null) + throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(operation)); + + // Fall back to Location.None if we can't get valid syntax + var syntax = operation.Syntax ?? throw new ArgumentException("Operation must have associated syntax", nameof(operation)); + return syntax.CreateDiagnostic(rule, additionalLocations, properties, messageArgs); +}And add XML documentation:
/// <summary> /// Creates a diagnostic from an IOperation instance. /// </summary> /// <remarks> /// This method uses the underlying syntax node of the operation to create the diagnostic. /// This ensures that the diagnostic is reported at the correct source location. /// </remarks> /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException">Thrown when operation is null.</exception> /// <exception cref="ArgumentException">Thrown when operation has no associated syntax.</exception>src/Moq.Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs (1)
66-66: LGTM! Simplified diagnostic creation.The change aligns with the PR objectives by simplifying the diagnostic creation process while maintaining the same behavior.
src/Moq.Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (5)
101-101: LGTM: Simplified diagnostic creation.The change to use
CreateDiagnosticdirectly on the operation is correct and aligns with the PR objectives of simplifying diagnostic creation.
129-129: LGTM: Simplified diagnostic creation.The change to use
CreateDiagnosticdirectly on the operation is correct and aligns with the PR objectives of simplifying diagnostic creation.
Line range hint
25-31: Verify thread safety of compilation analysis registration.The analyzer correctly enables concurrent execution with
EnableConcurrentExecution(). However, we should verify that the compilation analysis registration is thread-safe, particularly around the caching of mock types and behavior symbols.Let's check for any shared state or potential race conditions:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify thread safety by looking at the analyzer's implementation more comprehensively.
Based on the analyzer's implementation, I can now provide a final response about the thread safety concern:
The analyzer implementation is thread-safe
The implementation shows good thread-safety practices:
- All fields are static and readonly (
Title,Message,Rule,SupportedDiagnostics)- No shared mutable state exists in the analyzer class
- Compilation-specific symbols (
mockTypes,mockBehaviorSymbol,ofMethods) are scoped to each compilation analysis context- Analysis operations are stateless and work only with the data passed through their parameters
The caching of mock types and behavior symbols is handled safely within the scope of each compilation analysis context, with no shared state between different analysis operations.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for field declarations that might indicate shared state ast-grep --pattern 'class SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer { $$$ private $_* $_* = $_*; $$$ }'Length of output: 101
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for the full analyzer class implementation to check field declarations and analysis registration rg -U "class SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer" -A 100 --type csLength of output: 14882
Line range hint
71-99: Consider handling null argument values in mock behavior detection.The argument analysis in
AnalyzeNewObjectassumes non-null values when checking for field references. While the current implementation works for standard cases, it might not handle edge cases where argument values are null.Let's check if there are any tests covering null argument scenarios:
Consider adding null checks:
foreach (IArgumentOperation argument in creationOperation.Arguments) { + if (argument?.Value == null) continue; if (argument.Value is IFieldReferenceOperation fieldReferenceOperation) { + if (fieldReferenceOperation.Member == null) continue; ISymbol field = fieldReferenceOperation.Member; if (field.ContainingType.IsInstanceOf(mockBehaviorSymbol) && IsExplicitBehavior(field.Name)) { return; } } }
Line range hint
138-140: Consider using StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase for behavior names.The
IsExplicitBehaviormethod currently uses case-sensitive comparison. While the current implementation works with the standard Moq API, it might miss custom-defined behaviors or different casing variations.Let's verify if there are any custom behavior definitions in the codebase:
Consider updating to:
private static bool IsExplicitBehavior(string symbolName) { - return string.Equals(symbolName, "Loose", StringComparison.Ordinal) || string.Equals(symbolName, "Strict", StringComparison.Ordinal); + return string.Equals(symbolName, "Loose", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) || string.Equals(symbolName, "Strict", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase); }src/Moq.Analyzers/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodAnalyzer.cs (2)
61-62: LGTM: Diagnostic creation simplificationThe changes simplify diagnostic creation by using the extension method directly on syntax nodes instead of first getting their locations. This maintains the same functionality while making the code more concise.
Also applies to: 99-100
Line range hint
104-134: Verify handling of generic type parameters and user-defined conversionsThe type conversion logic handles basic scenarios well, but there might be edge cases with generic type parameters or user-defined conversion operators that could cause false positives/negatives.
Let's verify the handling of these cases:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the test cases and implementations.
Let me gather one final piece of information about the CustomType implementation in the tests.
Based on the gathered evidence, I can now provide the final response:
Type conversion handling is properly implemented and tested
The implementation correctly handles all important conversion scenarios:
- The test suite includes comprehensive cases for generic type parameters (e.g.,
List<string>)- User-defined conversions are properly tested with
CustomTypethat includes both implicit (inttoCustomType) and explicit (stringtoCustomType) operators- The analyzer correctly handles nullable types (verified by test case with
object?)- The test cases confirm proper handling of:
- Identity conversions (same types)
- Implicit conversions (including user-defined ones)
- Explicit conversions
- Generic type parameters
The original concern about potential edge cases with generic type parameters and user-defined conversions is unfounded, as the test suite demonstrates robust handling of these scenarios.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for test cases involving generic parameters and user-defined conversions rg -l "It\.IsAny<" . ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ { $$$ static explicit operator $_($_ $_) { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 380
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check test cases in CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs rg -A 10 "It\.IsAny<" ./tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs # Look for test cases specifically testing conversion scenarios rg -A 10 "Conversion|Convert" ./tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs # Check for generic type parameter handling in the analyzer ast-grep --pattern 'class CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodAnalyzer { $$$ private static bool HasConversion($_) { $$$ } }'Length of output: 7685
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for CustomType implementation in test files rg -A 15 "class CustomType" ./tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.csLength of output: 594
src/Moq.Analyzers/ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.cs (1)
Line range hint
142-146: LGTM! Verify extension method implementation.The simplified diagnostic creation maintains the same functionality while reducing code complexity. The change is safe as it preserves null handling through the null-conditional operator.
Let's verify the extension method implementation:
✅ Verification successful
Let's try a different search strategy to locate the extension method implementation.
LGTM! The extension method implementation is safe and correct.
The search results show that
CreateDiagnosticis properly implemented insrc/Moq.Analyzers/Common/DiagnosticExtensions.cs. The extension method:
- Correctly handles location tracking by calling
GetLocation()internally- Provides multiple overloads to handle different input types (SyntaxNode, Location, IOperation)
- Maintains proper null safety through optional parameters
- Preserves all diagnostic information including additional locations and properties
The refactoring in
ConstructorArgumentsShouldMatchAnalyzer.csis using this well-implemented extension method, which makes the code more concise while maintaining the same functionality.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the CreateDiagnostic extension method implementation # to ensure it properly handles location tracking internally # Search for the CreateDiagnostic extension method definition ast-grep --pattern 'public static $_ CreateDiagnostic($_) { $$$ }'Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for files containing "CreateDiagnostic" method rg -l "CreateDiagnostic" # Then search for the actual implementation with context rg "CreateDiagnostic" -A 5 -B 2Length of output: 15629
2 participants
This is a small, preparatory refactoring change. No behavior differences.
IOperationoverload toDiagnosticExtensionsto simplify creating diagnosticsnullfor optional parameters instead of a mix of nulls and empty collections.CreateDiagnostic()calls to simplify code slightly