Check bounds for switched on values and roslyn cleanup

[marcschier]

Proposed changes

Describe the changes here to communicate to the maintainers why we should accept this pull request. If it fixes a bug or resolves a feature request, be sure to link to that issue.

Related Issues

• Fixes #

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce?
Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR.

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Test enhancement (non-breaking change to increase test coverage)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected, requires version increase of Nuget packages)
• Documentation Update (if none of the other choices apply)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc.
• I have signed the CLA.
• I ran tests locally with my changes, all passed.
• I fixed all failing tests in the CI pipelines.
• I fixed all introduced issues with CodeQL and LGTM.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works and increased code coverage.
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate).
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules.

Further comments

If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
1 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.

✅ marcschier
❌ Copilot
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 17.31009% with 664 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 57.61%. Comparing base (ff0095c) to head (53cb3e9).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Types/Utils/TypeInfo.cs	21.95%	92 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Stack/Types/FilterEvaluator.cs	2.73%	71 Missing ⚠️
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Stack/State/NodeState.cs	19.40%	52 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Stack/Nodes/Node.cs	0.00%	51 Missing ⚠️
Libraries/Opc.Ua.Client/Session/Session.cs	0.00%	28 Missing ⚠️
Libraries/Opc.Ua.Server/Diagnostics/AuditEvents.cs	0.00%	25 Missing ⚠️
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Types/BuiltIn/NodeId.cs	4.76%	20 Missing ⚠️
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Types/Encoders/XmlEncoder.cs	0.00%	16 Missing ⚠️
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Types/Utils/DataGenerator.cs	60.97%	14 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...pc.Ua.Gds.Server.Common/ApplicationsNodeManager.cs	42.30%	8 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
... and 57 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3264      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   57.88%   57.61%   -0.28%     
==========================================
  Files         365      365              
  Lines       79723    80076     +353     
  Branches    13852    13859       +7     
==========================================
- Hits        46150    46138      -12     
- Misses      29428    29737     +309     
- Partials     4145     4201      +56     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR focuses on checking bounds for values used in switch statements and includes various Roslyn analyzer cleanup improvements across the codebase.

Key changes include:

• Enhanced switch statement handling with proper bounds checking and default cases
• Replacement of manual exception construction with ServiceResultException.Unexpected() utility method
• Addition of missing default cases in switch statements to handle unexpected enum values
• Code cleanup and modernization following Roslyn analyzer suggestions

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 123 out of 123 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
Tests/Opc.Ua.Server.Tests/ServerFixtureUtils.cs	Replaced manual ServiceResultException construction with ServiceResultException.Unexpected()
Tests/Opc.Ua.Core.Tests/Types/Encoders/JsonValidationData.cs	Converted switch statement to switch expression with bounds checking
Tests/Opc.Ua.Core.Tests/Types/Encoders/EncoderCommon.cs	Added default case with bounds checking in decode method
Tests/Opc.Ua.Core.Tests/Types/Encoders/EncodeableTests.cs	Added missing default cases and exception documentation
Tests/Opc.Ua.Core.Tests/Types/BuiltIn/BuiltInTests.cs	Enhanced NodeId comparison with proper default case handling
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Types/Utils/Utils.cs	Reorganized switch statements and replaced manual exception construction
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Types/Utils/TypeInfo.cs	Added bounds checking and proper default cases for BuiltInType handling
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Types/Utils/ServiceResultException.cs	Added Unexpected() utility method for consistent exception handling
Stack/Opc.Ua.Core/Types/Encoders/*.cs	Enhanced encoder/decoder classes with proper bounds checking
Libraries/Opc.Ua.Server/Session/Session.cs	Added bounds checking for RequestType enum values

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (4)

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[romanett]

@marcschier thanks for investigating the CI Issues. Can you put the final fixes into a separate PR for better separation?

[marcschier]

@marcschier thanks for investigating the CI Issues. Can you put the final fixes into a separate PR for better separation?

@romanett - I am waiting whether I can get tests to pass more stably with this one, and then sort out separating this and stability into 2 PRs. I used this one to incrementally debug because it was the biggest and furthest one ahead compared to the other 2 PR, which now are merged, so yes, makes sense.

[salihgoncu]

I was a bit late to complete review. :)