Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer to use KnownSymbols and add CodeFix #296

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Dec 23, 2024

Conversation

MattKotsenas
Copy link
Collaborator

@MattKotsenas MattKotsenas commented Dec 20, 2024

This PR accomplishes two goals:

  1. It refactors the SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer to use KnownSymbols to simplify the analyzer and use the IOperation-based analysis
  2. It adds a corresponding code fixer that provides two entries under the "lightbulb"
  • Set MockBehavior (Loose)
  • Set MockBehavior (Strict)

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 20, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request introduces significant enhancements to the Moq.Analyzers project, focusing on improving code analysis and code fix capabilities. The changes primarily involve creating new extension methods, refactoring existing analyzers, and introducing more robust diagnostic and code fix mechanisms. The modifications span multiple files across the project, introducing new classes for symbol and operation extensions, diagnostic edit properties, and code fix providers.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs Streamlined mock behavior analysis logic, simplified method signatures, and introduced centralized AnalyzeCore method.
src/CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodFixer.cs Renamed class and export code fix provider.
src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.cs Added TryGetEditProperties extension method for CodeFixContext.
src/CodeFixes/SetExplicitMockBehaviorFixer.cs New code fix provider for handling explicit mock behavior settings.
src/CodeFixes/SyntaxGeneratorExtensions.cs Added extension methods for syntax manipulation related to member access and argument lists.
src/Common/* Introduced multiple new extension classes for symbols, operations, and enumerables, enhancing functionality.

Suggested labels

analyzers, bug

Suggested reviewers

  • rjmurillo

Possibly related PRs


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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @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.

src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/Common/IMethodSymbolExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/CodeFixes/SetExplicitMockBehaviorFixer.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/Common/IMethodSymbolExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 12

🔭 Outside diff range comments (5)
src/Common/InvocationExpressionSyntaxExtensions.cs (2)

Line range hint 13-15: Add bounds check for ArgumentList access

The method accesses Arguments[0] without checking if the ArgumentList contains any arguments.

Consider this safer implementation:

     internal static InvocationExpressionSyntax? FindMockedMethodInvocationFromSetupMethod(this InvocationExpressionSyntax? setupInvocation)
     {
-        LambdaExpressionSyntax? setupLambdaArgument = setupInvocation?.ArgumentList.Arguments[0].Expression as LambdaExpressionSyntax;
+        if (setupInvocation?.ArgumentList?.Arguments.Count == 0)
+        {
+            return null;
+        }
+        
+        LambdaExpressionSyntax? setupLambdaArgument = setupInvocation?.ArgumentList?.Arguments[0].Expression as LambdaExpressionSyntax;
         return setupLambdaArgument?.Body as InvocationExpressionSyntax;
     }

Line range hint 17-21: Add similar bounds check for FindMockedMemberExpressionFromSetupMethod

This method has the same array access issue as the previous method.

Apply similar fix:

     internal static ExpressionSyntax? FindMockedMemberExpressionFromSetupMethod(this InvocationExpressionSyntax? setupInvocation)
     {
-        LambdaExpressionSyntax? setupLambdaArgument = setupInvocation?.ArgumentList.Arguments[0].Expression as LambdaExpressionSyntax;
+        if (setupInvocation?.ArgumentList?.Arguments.Count == 0)
+        {
+            return null;
+        }
+        
+        LambdaExpressionSyntax? setupLambdaArgument = setupInvocation?.ArgumentList?.Arguments[0].Expression as LambdaExpressionSyntax;
         return setupLambdaArgument?.Body as ExpressionSyntax;
     }
src/CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodFixer.cs (3)

Line range hint 65-69: Add null check and error handling for callbackInvocation

The current implementation assumes the parent chain will be valid, which might not always be true.

Add proper null checking and error handling:

-        if (oldParameters?.Parent?.Parent?.Parent?.Parent is not InvocationExpressionSyntax callbackInvocation)
+        if (oldParameters is null)
+        {
+            return document;
+        }
+
+        var parent = oldParameters.Parent?.Parent?.Parent?.Parent;
+        if (parent is not InvocationExpressionSyntax callbackInvocation)

Line range hint 71-72: Replace Debug.Assert with runtime check

Using Debug.Assert is not suitable for production code as it's stripped in release builds.

Replace with runtime validation:

-        Debug.Assert(setupMethodInvocation != null, nameof(setupMethodInvocation) + " != null");
+        if (setupMethodInvocation is null)
+        {
+            return document;
+        }

Line range hint 74-77: Add error handling for empty matchingMockedMethods

The code assumes there will always be exactly one matching method, but should handle the empty case explicitly.

Add explicit handling:

-        if (matchingMockedMethods.Length != 1)
+        if (matchingMockedMethods.Length == 0)
+        {
+            // Log or handle the case where no matching methods were found
+            return document;
+        }
+        
+        if (matchingMockedMethods.Length > 1)
+        {
+            // Log or handle the case where multiple matching methods were found
+            return document;
+        }
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 07c600e and a407efd.

📒 Files selected for processing (14)
  • src/Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodFixer.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/CodeFixes/SetExplicitMockBehaviorFixer.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/CodeFixes/SyntaxGeneratorExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/Common/DiagnosticEditProperties.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/Common/EnumerableExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/Common/IMethodSymbolExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/Common/IOperationExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (3 hunks)
  • src/Common/InvocationExpressionSyntaxExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs (1 hunks)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs (0 hunks)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplicitMockBehaviorCodeFixTests.cs (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzerTests.cs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (13)
src/Common/InvocationExpressionSyntaxExtensions.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/DiagnosticEditProperties.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/CodeFixes/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodFixer.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/EnumerableExtensions.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/SetExplicitMockBehaviorCodeFixTests.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/CodeFixes/SyntaxGeneratorExtensions.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/IMethodSymbolExtensions.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/CodeFixes/SetExplicitMockBehaviorFixer.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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-latest)
src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.cs

[failure] 29-29:
Use an overload of 'TryParse' that has a 'System.IFormatProvider' parameter (https://github.com/meziantou/Meziantou.Analyzer/blob/main/docs/Rules/MA0011.md)


[failure] 29-29:
Use an overload of 'TryParse' that has a 'System.IFormatProvider' parameter (https://github.com/meziantou/Meziantou.Analyzer/blob/main/docs/Rules/MA0011.md)

🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/Common/EnumerableExtensions.cs (1)

10-11: LGTM: Optimized lambda allocation

Good use of the static lambda to avoid unnecessary allocations.

src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs (4)

30-32: LGTM! Correct handling of method symbol comparison.

The comparison of method symbols using OriginalDefinition properly handles generic method specializations.


63-79: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Consider performance optimization for large symbol arrays.

While the implementation is correct, consider using LINQ's FirstOrDefault for a more concise and potentially more efficient implementation when dealing with large arrays.

-foreach (TSymbol other in others)
-{
-    if (symbol.IsInstanceOf(other, symbolEqualityComparer))
-    {
-        matchingSymbol = other;
-        return true;
-    }
-}
-
-matchingSymbol = null;
-return false;
+matchingSymbol = others.FirstOrDefault(other => symbol.IsInstanceOf(other, symbolEqualityComparer));
+return matchingSymbol != null;

Likely invalid or redundant comment.


35-39: Verify handling of optional parameters.

While the current implementation correctly checks ordinal position and type, we should verify the behavior with optional parameters.


41-48: Verify handling of nested generic types.

The implementation handles basic generic types correctly, but we should verify behavior with nested generic types.

✅ Verification successful

Implementation correctly handles nested generic types

The current implementation of IsInstanceOf for INamedTypeSymbol is correct and safe for nested generic types because:

  1. It uses ConstructedFrom which is the Roslyn-provided way to get the original definition of a generic type, regardless of nesting depth
  2. The comparison is done using SymbolEqualityComparer which is designed to handle all symbol comparisons correctly, including nested generic types
  3. The implementation delegates the actual type comparison to Roslyn's built-in symbol comparison infrastructure
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for nested generic type declarations
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ {
  $$$
  $_<$_<$_>>
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 60


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find nested generic type usage
# First, let's see the full implementation of IsInstanceOf
rg -U "IsInstanceOf.*\{" -A 20

# Also search for test files that might contain nested generic type scenarios
fd "Test.*\.cs$" --exec rg -l "IsInstanceOf"

Length of output: 5344


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the complete implementation of IsInstanceOf method that handles INamedTypeSymbol
rg -U "public static bool IsInstanceOf.*\{" -B 5 -A 15 src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs

# Also search for any usages of IsInstanceOf with generic types in the codebase
rg "IsInstanceOf.*<.*>" -A 2

Length of output: 1346


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's see the complete implementation of the IsInstanceOf method
rg -U "IsInstanceOf.*\{" -B 2 -A 50 src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs

# Also look for any test cases that might verify the behavior
fd ".*Tests\.cs$" --exec rg -l "IsInstanceOf"

Length of output: 3133


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the primary IsInstanceOf method implementation that handles INamedTypeSymbol
rg -U "public static bool IsInstanceOf.*where TSymbol : class, ISymbol" -B 2 -A 20 src/Common/ISymbolExtensions.cs

# Also search for any usages with nested generic types in the codebase
rg "IsInstanceOf.*<.*<.*>>" -A 2

Length of output: 151

tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs (1)

1-1: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage.

The test cases thoroughly cover various callback scenarios including:

  • Different parameter types
  • Generic type conversions
  • Nullable references
  • Custom type conversions

src/CodeFixes/SyntaxGeneratorExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/CodeFixes/SyntaxGeneratorExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/Common/IMethodSymbolExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/CodeFixes/SetExplicitMockBehaviorFixer.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/Common/DiagnosticEditProperties.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
src/Common/EnumerableExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
src/Common/DiagnosticEditProperties.cs (1)

24-33: ⚠️ Potential issue

Add validation for EditPosition property

The EditPosition property lacks validation to ensure it's non-negative. This could lead to runtime errors.

Since this is a record class, implement validation in the primary constructor:

+    public DiagnosticEditProperties(EditType typeOfEdit, int editPosition)
+    {
+        if (editPosition < 0)
+            throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(editPosition), "Position cannot be negative");
+        
+        TypeOfEdit = typeOfEdit;
+        EditPosition = editPosition;
+    }
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a407efd and fb05939.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/Common/DiagnosticEditProperties.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/Common/EnumerableExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
src/Common/DiagnosticEditProperties.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/EnumerableExtensions.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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-latest)
src/Common/EnumerableExtensions.cs

[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)

🪛 GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
src/Common/EnumerableExtensions.cs

[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)

🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/Common/DiagnosticEditProperties.cs (1)

11-22: LGTM: Well-documented enum with clear purpose

The EditType enum is well-documented and its values clearly represent distinct operations.

src/Common/EnumerableExtensions.cs (3)

8-9: LGTM: Performance optimization with static lambda

Good use of static lambda to avoid unnecessary allocations.


11-15: LGTM: Consistent implementation with IEnumerable overload

The implementation follows the same pattern as the IEnumerable overload, maintaining consistency.


17-22: ⚠️ Potential issue

Avoid boxing with ImmutableArray

The use of AsEnumerable() causes unnecessary boxing for value types due to interface dispatch. This is flagged by static analysis.

Implement the logic directly to avoid boxing:

     public static TSource? DefaultIfNotSingle<TSource>(this ImmutableArray<TSource> source, Func<TSource, bool> predicate)
     {
-        return source.AsEnumerable().DefaultIfNotSingle(predicate);
+        bool isFound = false;
+        TSource? item = default;
+
+        for (int i = 0; i < source.Length; i++)
+        {
+            if (!predicate(source[i]))
+                continue;
+                
+            if (isFound)
+                return default;
+
+            isFound = true;
+            item = source[i];
+        }
+
+        return item;
     }

Likely invalid or redundant comment.

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)

[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)

🪛 GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)

[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)


[failure] 22-22:
Consider using an alternative implementation to avoid boxing and unboxing (https://github.com/rjmurillo/EffectiveCSharp.Analyzers/blob/2e09b6784ae3cb47e1a313dfd34379bef7c3078e/docs/rules/ECS0900.md)

src/Common/DiagnosticEditProperties.cs Show resolved Hide resolved
@MattKotsenas MattKotsenas force-pushed the feature/mockbehavior-codefix branch from fb05939 to d7c103c Compare December 20, 2024 23:33
Copy link

codeclimate bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Code Climate has analyzed commit d7c103c and detected 20 issues on this pull request.

Here's the issue category breakdown:

Category Count
Complexity 7
Duplication 2
Style 11

View more on Code Climate.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 4

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fb05939 and d7c103c.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)
  • src/Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (2 hunks)
  • src/Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml (1 hunks)
  • src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/Common/DiagnosticEditProperties.cs (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (3)
src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/DiagnosticEditProperties.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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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/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:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. 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 (27)
src/Common/DiagnosticEditProperties.cs (2)

8-9: Consider making static fields constants instead of using nameof(EditTypeKey) and nameof(EditPositionKey).
They’re used solely as dictionary keys, so meaningful constant strings (e.g., "EditType", "EditPosition") would be clearer and avoid any confusion about circular references.


35-35: Validate negative positions for EditPosition.
If a negative EditPosition is unintended, it can lead to off-by-one or unforeseen indexing errors. Add a validation or throw an exception to avoid such edge cases.

src/CodeFixes/CodeFixContextExtensions.cs (1)

10-10: Check if context.Diagnostics is empty before accessing context.Diagnostics[0].
Directly accessing context.Diagnostics[0] can throw IndexOutOfRangeException if there are no diagnostics. Add a bounds check to ensure a safer implementation.

    public static bool TryGetEditProperties(this CodeFixContext context, [NotNullWhen(true)] out DiagnosticEditProperties? editProperties)
    {
+       if (context.Diagnostics.Length == 0)
+       {
+           editProperties = null;
+           return false;
+       }

        ImmutableDictionary<string, string?> properties = context.Diagnostics[0].Properties;
        return DiagnosticEditProperties.TryGetFromImmutableDictionary(properties, out editProperties);
    }
src/Analyzers/SetExplicitMockBehaviorAnalyzer.cs (23)

1-2: No issues found with the new using directives.
They correctly reference necessary namespaces for the analyzer.


54-54: Balanced approach to object creation vs. invocation analysis.
You are correctly handling both object creation and invocation. No issues identified.


57-59: Robust check for IObjectCreationOperation.
This validates the operation kind gracefully, preventing null references.


73-73: Delegated analysis call looks good.
AnalyzeCore is kept separate, preserving modular design and readability.


76-78: Robust check for IInvocationOperation.
Similar to AnalyzeObjectCreation, it ensures the operation kind is correct. No issues found.


83-87: Selective scoping for recognized methods.
The code warns about potential expansions. It's a good practice to keep the analysis targeted to avoid false positives.


90-90: Invocation analysis delegated to AnalyzeCore.
Keeps the approach consistent with object creation analysis.


94-94: Centralizing logic in AnalyzeCore.
This is a good design approach, ensuring consistent checks for both invocation and object creation.


99-100: Graceful fallback to overload with a MockBehavior parameter.
This logic is valuable for guiding the user towards the correct method signature, rather than ignoring the missing parameter.


102-104: Return early if the overload unexpectedly lacks the parameter.
This prevents false positives and ensures consistent flow.


107-111: DiagnosticEditProperties insertion logic.
Properties are built here to guide the eventual code fix, with a clearly documented rationale. Looks good.


113-114: Diagnostic reported for no MockBehavior parameter.
This warns users about missing parameter usage or the availability of a better overload.


118-119: Locates the argument specifically for the mockBehavior parameter.
The approach is consistent with the extension method usage.


120-122: Detecting default value usage.
The comment clarifies the challenge of distinguishing Loose vs. Default. The fallback logic is sensible.


123-126: Defensive check for parameter retrieval.
Prevents null references or unexpected states.


128-133: Similar property building for Insert edit.
Consistent approach to building the DiagnosticEditProperties for code fix insertion.


134-134: Code fix diagnostic is reported.
No issues.


143-143: Parameter lookup repeated.
No problem found. It's consistent with prior usage.


145-145: Return if param match is not found.
No issues.


148-152: DiagnosticEditProperties for Replace edit.
This is used correctly to help users transition from Default to an explicit mock behavior.


154-155: Reporting the final diagnostic for the Replace scenario.
Concludes the logic properly. No issues.


52-52: Check for potential performance overhead from registering two operation actions.
While this is likely fine, ensure that each registered action does not run excessive logic.

✅ Verification successful

Based on the results, I can now generate the final response as I have enough information about the implementation of both analysis methods.

No performance concerns found in the registered operation actions

Both AnalyzeObjectCreation and AnalyzeInvocation methods contain early returns and simple type checks. The logic is straightforward and efficient:

  • AnalyzeObjectCreation performs basic null checks and type instance verification
  • AnalyzeInvocation has minimal logic with early returns and a narrowly scoped check, as explicitly noted in the comments
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# This script looks for usage of "AnalyzeObjectCreation" and "AnalyzeInvocation"
# to verify that no heavy operations are performed in a tight loop.
rg "AnalyzeObjectCreation|AnalyzeInvocation" -A 10

Length of output: 3960


96-97: Ensure correct identification of the MockBehavior parameter.
No immediate issues, but watch for edge cases with types that implement or wrap MockBehavior differently.

✅ Verification successful

Based on the search results, I can see that the MockBehavior parameter is well-handled across the codebase. The test cases cover various scenarios including:

  1. Different MockBehavior values (Loose, Strict, Default)
  2. Different mock creation patterns (constructor, Mock.Of, MockRepository)
  3. Edge cases with different parameter combinations
  4. Both explicit and implicit behavior specifications

The analyzer correctly identifies the MockBehavior parameter through IsInstanceOf(knownSymbols.MockBehavior) check, which is consistent with how the parameter is used throughout the codebase. The test coverage demonstrates that the parameter identification is working as expected.

No edge cases or wrapper types around MockBehavior were found in the codebase.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for any wrapper or extension usage around MockBehavior to ensure coverage
rg "MockBehavior" -A 15

Length of output: 66588

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

362-362: IDE0005 rule enabled by default.
Previously, it may have been disabled. Enabling it can help remove unnecessary using directives, but verify that spurious warnings do not hamper code readability.

✅ Verification successful

IDE0005 rule configuration is consistent across the codebase

The rule is enabled by default (IsEnabledByDefault: true) in all configuration files, but it's explicitly suppressed (IsEverSuppressed: true) in production code paths (src/) while being active in test paths. This is an intentional configuration to maintain different standards for production and test code.

  • src/Analyzers/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml: Suppressed
  • src/CodeFixes/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml: Suppressed
  • tests/*/SquiggleCop.Baseline.yaml: Not suppressed
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Searching for IDE0005 suppression or references
rg "IDE0005" -A 5

Length of output: 7640

@MattKotsenas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I admit this is bigger than I'd like for a single change. If it's too big to review effectively, let me know and I'll try to break it up.

@rjmurillo rjmurillo added this to the vNext milestone Dec 23, 2024
@rjmurillo rjmurillo merged commit f80520f into rjmurillo:main Dec 23, 2024
7 of 9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants