Document remaining IDExxxx rules #20986
Conversation
mavasani
requested review from
mikadumont and
gewarren
and removed request for
gewarren
docs/fundamentals/code-analysis/style-rules/unnecessary-code-rules.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/fundamentals/code-analysis/style-rules/unnecessary-code-rules.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/fundamentals/code-analysis/style-rules/unnecessary-code-rules.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/fundamentals/code-analysis/style-rules/unnecessary-code-rules.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Genevieve Warren <24882762+gewarren@users.noreply.github.com>
| - [nameof operator](../../../csharp/language-reference/operators/nameof.md) | ||
| - [typeof operator](../../../csharp/language-reference/operators/type-testing-and-cast.md#typeof-operator) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The rule is applicable to both C# and VB. I think the parallel doc pages for VB needs to be added too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @Youssef1313. This applies to almost all the IDE rules that have been documented, but all these things were just drastically increasing the scope of work for initial refactor. Additionally, adding a VB specific section to these rule docs made it quite verbose. I have used references to C# keywords/docs to keep the scope reasonable. Feel free to create follow-up PR(s) to add VB specific content to the docs - you may want to first create a PR for updating a single rule and get it reviewed from @gewarren so you are on same page on how to add this content, and then do updates to other rules.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By the way, I don't think we should create separate pages for C# and VB, but instead add VB specific content to the same doc. IMO, maintaining 2 extremely similar doc pages for same rule, but different languages, is not scalable and docs will get out of sync and/or make it likely that future additions will miss adding VB counterpart.
|
@gewarren Seeing the following warning:
|
|
@gewarren this should be ready now. |
All IDExxxx rules currently implemented in Roslyn master should now be documented with a dedicated doc page.