Fix method check for callback and returns #429
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough""" WalkthroughThe changes refine the method for identifying callback or return symbols in Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Benchmark as CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks
participant Symbol as MethodSymbol
Benchmark->>Symbol: OldCallbackCheck()/OldReturnsCheck()
Note right of Symbol: Checks ToString().StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback"/"Moq.Language.IReturns")
Benchmark->>Symbol: NewCallbackCheck()/NewReturnsCheck()
Note right of Symbol: Checks ContainingType and Name for exact match
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🧰 Additional context used📓 Path-based instructions (1)`**/*.cs`: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR refines the detection logic for callback and returns methods by shifting from relying on string representations to using type-based checks, and adds microbenchmarks to compare the legacy and new approaches.
- Updated callback/return detection to use the method’s containing type for improved accuracy.
- Introduced microbenchmark tests to compare performance of the old versus new logic.
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs | Added benchmarks to compare the legacy and improved callback/return detection methods. |
| src/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs | Refactored detection logic to use the method’s containing type rather than string parsing for improved robustness. |
| bool isCallback = string.Equals(methodSymbol.Name, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal) | ||
| && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal); | ||
|
|
||
| bool isReturns = string.Equals(methodSymbol.Name, "Returns", StringComparison.Ordinal) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider centralizing the callback/return symbol detection logic since similar implementations appear in both the benchmarking file and the common extensions, which would reduce duplication and simplify future maintenance.
| bool isCallback = string.Equals(methodSymbol.Name, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal) | |
| && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal); | |
| bool isReturns = string.Equals(methodSymbol.Name, "Returns", StringComparison.Ordinal) | |
| bool isCallback = string.Equals(methodName, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal) | |
| && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal); | |
| bool isReturns = string.Equals(methodName, "Returns", StringComparison.Ordinal) |
Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
![qlty-cloud-legacy[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/9403?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
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 preferences |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
♻️ Duplicate comments (2)
src/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (1)
131-135: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)Fix indentation to match coding standards.
The indentation inconsistencies flagged in previous reviews are still present and should be corrected.
Apply this diff to fix the indentation:
bool isCallback = string.Equals(methodSymbol.Name, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal) - && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal); + && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal); bool isReturns = string.Equals(methodSymbol.Name, "Returns", StringComparison.Ordinal) - && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.IReturns", StringComparison.Ordinal); + && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.IReturns", StringComparison.Ordinal);tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs (1)
54-71: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionCode duplication: Centralize the callback/return detection logic.
The new implementation here duplicates the exact logic from
SemanticModelExtensions.cs. This creates maintenance overhead and potential for divergence between the two implementations.Consider extracting this logic to a shared utility method or referencing the actual implementation from
SemanticModelExtensionsinstead of duplicating it in the benchmark.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs(1 hunks)tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
`**/*.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
- O...
**/*.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.cstests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (1)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs (1)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/CSharpCompilationCreator.cs (1)
CSharpCompilationCreator(11-57)
⏰ 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 (4)
src/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs (3)
123-127: Good improvement: Added proper null checking for containing type.The null check prevents potential null reference exceptions that could occur if a method symbol doesn't have a containing type.
131-137: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)Potential edge case: Method name could be null or empty.
While unlikely for valid symbols, the code doesn't handle the case where
methodSymbol.Namemight be null or empty, which could cause unexpected behavior.Consider adding a defensive check:
+ if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(methodSymbol.Name)) + { + return false; + } + bool isCallback = string.Equals(methodSymbol.Name, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal) && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal);Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.
129-129:❓ Verification inconclusive
Potential bug: String format mismatch between old and new implementations.
The new implementation uses
containingType.ToDisplayString()while the old implementation (visible in the benchmark) usedsymbol.ToString(). These may produce different string formats, potentially causing the new logic to miss valid callback/return symbols that the old logic would have caught.Run this script to verify the string format consistency:
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for any existing tests that verify the IsCallbackOrReturnSymbol behavior # to understand the expected string formats # Look for tests related to IsCallbackOrReturnSymbol rg -A 10 -B 5 "IsCallbackOrReturnSymbol|CallbackOrReturn" --type cs # Look for any tests that might be using the old string format rg -A 5 -B 5 "Moq\.Language\.ICallback|Moq\.Language\.IReturns" --type csLength of output: 14858
Verify string‐format consistency for callback/return detection
There are no existing tests exercising IsCallbackOrReturnSymbol, and switching from symbol.ToString() to containingType.ToDisplayString() may change the prefix you’re matching against. Please ensure that ToDisplayString() actually yields the same “Moq.Language.ICallback”/“Moq.Language.IReturns” strings in all cases (including any generics or nested types). Consider one of the following:
- Add unit tests for IsCallbackOrReturnSymbol (e.g. build symbols for ICallback/IReturns, assert it returns true).
- Use an explicit SymbolDisplayFormat (e.g. SymbolDisplayFormat.FullyQualifiedFormat) with ToDisplayString(...) to guarantee the exact prefix.
- Or revert to symbol.ToString() if that better aligns with existing behavior.
Location:
- src/Common/SemanticModelExtensions.cs:129
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs (1)
42-52:✅ Verification successful
Verify that old implementation matches actual previous code.
The old implementation in this benchmark might not accurately represent what was actually used in the codebase before the refactoring. The benchmark calls
symbol.ToString()and checks if it starts with interface names, but this needs verification against the real previous implementation.Run this script to find the actual old implementation:
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Look for the previous implementation of IsCallbackOrReturnSymbol in git history # Search git history for the old implementation git log -p --all -S "IsCallbackOrReturnSymbol" -- "*.cs" | head -100 # Look for any remnants of the old string-based approach rg -A 5 -B 5 "ToString.*StartsWith.*Moq\.Language" --type csLength of output: 62
I’ll pull the file’s commit history and dump its previous version to verify the original implementation:
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # List the last 10 commits touching the benchmark file git log --pretty=format:"%h - %cd - %s" --date=short -- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs | head -10 # Identify the commit just before the latest change PREV_COMMIT=$(git log -n 2 --pretty=format:"%h" -- tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs | tail -1) # Show the file content at that previous commit git show "${PREV_COMMIT}:tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs"Length of output: 2681
Old implementation verified in git history
The
OldIsCallbackOrReturnSymbolmethod intests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs(lines 42–52) exactly matches its previous commit version, so no update to the benchmark is needed.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
- Added null checks for compilation and type symbols to ensure robust error handling. - Implemented specific exceptions for missing types and unexpected member counts, improving diagnostic clarity during benchmark setup. This change enhances the reliability of the benchmark tests by providing clearer feedback when issues arise during compilation.
- Changed the asynchronous setup method to a synchronous one for improved performance and simplicity. - Updated error messages to reflect the new setup method name, enhancing clarity in exception handling. This change streamlines the benchmark initialization process and ensures consistent error reporting.
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)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
`**/*.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
- O...
**/*.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.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-24.04-arm)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs (4)
56-64: Good defensive programming - null checks address previous concerns.The null check before using
_callbackMethodproperly addresses the potential null reference issues mentioned in past reviews.
26-29: Excellent error handling improvement.The null check and descriptive exception for compilation failure is a significant improvement over the unsafe null-forgiving operators mentioned in past reviews.
36-41: Robust validation of member count.The validation that exactly one method is found prevents potential
Single()exceptions and provides clear error messages. This is good defensive programming.
25-25:⚠️ Potential issuePotential deadlock risk with GetAwaiter().GetResult().
Using
GetAwaiter().GetResult()can cause deadlocks in contexts with aSynchronizationContext(like UI applications or ASP.NET). While this might work in a benchmark context, it's a risky pattern.Consider using
ConfigureAwait(false)or making the setup method async:- Compilation? compilation = CSharpCompilationCreator.CreateAsync(sources).GetAwaiter().GetResult(); + Compilation? compilation = await CSharpCompilationCreator.CreateAsync(sources).ConfigureAwait(false);Or alternatively:
- [GlobalSetup] - public void Setup() + [GlobalSetup] + public async Task Setup()Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.
| bool isReturns = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Returns", StringComparison.Ordinal) | ||
| && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.IReturns", StringComparison.Ordinal); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential false positive matches with StartsWith check.
Same issue as with the callback check - StartsWith could match extended interface names.
Use exact string comparison:
- bool isReturns = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Returns", StringComparison.Ordinal)
- && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.IReturns", StringComparison.Ordinal);
+ bool isReturns = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Returns", StringComparison.Ordinal)
+ && string.Equals(containingTypeName, "Moq.Language.IReturns", StringComparison.Ordinal);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| bool isReturns = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Returns", StringComparison.Ordinal) | |
| && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.IReturns", StringComparison.Ordinal); | |
| bool isReturns = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Returns", StringComparison.Ordinal) | |
| && string.Equals(containingTypeName, "Moq.Language.IReturns", StringComparison.Ordinal); |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs at lines
121-122, replace the StartsWith check on containingTypeName with an exact string
comparison to avoid false positives from extended interface names. Change the
condition to compare containingTypeName exactly to "Moq.Language.IReturns" using
string.Equals with StringComparison.Ordinal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@coderabbitai make an issue for this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧩 Analysis chain
@rjmurillo I'll create an issue to track this potential false positive problem.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Create a GitHub issue for the StartsWith false positive issue
gh issue create \
--title "Potential false positive matches in callback/returns symbol detection" \
--body "## Description
The current implementation of callback and returns symbol detection in the benchmark code uses \`StartsWith\` checks for interface names, which could lead to false positive matches.
## Problem
In \`CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs\`, the \`NewIsCallbackOrReturnSymbol\` method uses:
- \`containingTypeName.StartsWith(\"Moq.Language.ICallback\", StringComparison.Ordinal)\`
- \`containingTypeName.StartsWith(\"Moq.Language.IReturns\", StringComparison.Ordinal)\`
This could incorrectly match extended interface names like:
- \`Moq.Language.ICallbackExtended\`
- \`Moq.Language.IReturnsSpecial\`
## Expected Behavior
The detection should use exact string comparisons to match only the specific interface names.
## Context
- **PR**: https://github.com/rjmurillo/moq.analyzers/pull/429
- **Comment**: https://github.com/rjmurillo/moq.analyzers/pull/429#discussion_r2134957538
- **Reported by**: @rjmurillo" \
--assignee rjmurillo
Length of output: 1093
Perfect! I've successfully created issue #459 to track the potential false positive matches in callback/returns symbol detection.
Issue created: #459
The issue documents the problem with using StartsWith checks that could incorrectly match extended interface names, and it's been assigned to you for follow-up. This will help ensure the fix gets proper attention in a future PR.
🧬 Code Graph Analysis Results
Possibly relevant snippets from tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/CSharpCompilationCreator.cs (lines 11-57)
internal static class CSharpCompilationCreator
{
public static async Task<Compilation?> CreateAsync((string, string)[] sourceFiles)
{
(Project project, _) = await CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync(
sourceFiles,
null,
"TestProject",
LanguageNames.CSharp,
"/0/Test",
"cs",
new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary),
new CSharpParseOptions(LanguageVersion.Default),
ReferenceAssemblies.Default).ConfigureAwait(false);
return await project.GetCompilationAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
public static async Task<Compilation?> CreateAsync((string, string)[] sourceFiles, ReferenceAssemblies referenceAssemblies)
{
(Project project, _) = await CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync(
sourceFiles,
null,
"TestProject",
LanguageNames.CSharp,
"/0/Test",
"cs",
new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary),
new CSharpParseOptions(LanguageVersion.Default),
referenceAssemblies).ConfigureAwait(false);
return await project.GetCompilationAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
public static async Task<(Compilation? Compilation, AnalyzerOptions Options)> CreateWithOptionsAsync((string, string)[] sourceFiles, (string, string)[] globalOptions)
{
(Project project, AnalyzerOptions options) = await CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync(
sourceFiles,
globalOptions,
"TestProject",
LanguageNames.CSharp,
"/0/Test",
"cs",
new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary),
new CSharpParseOptions(LanguageVersion.Default),
ReferenceAssemblies.Default).ConfigureAwait(false);
return (await project.GetCompilationAsync().ConfigureAwait(false), options);
}
}Summary:
This helper class provides asynchronous methods to create Roslyn Compilation objects from given source files. It uses an underlying CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync method to create a Project and then retrieves the compilation. It supports optional reference assemblies and global analyzer options. This is directly relevant because the benchmark file uses CSharpCompilationCreator.CreateAsync to create a compilation for the benchmark setup.
[no other relevant code snippets]
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| string containingTypeName = containingType.ToDisplayString(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Performance consideration: ToDisplayString() might be expensive.
ToDisplayString() can be relatively expensive compared to accessing symbol properties directly. For a performance benchmark, consider using more direct symbol property access.
Consider using symbol metadata directly:
- string containingTypeName = containingType.ToDisplayString();
+ // Check namespace and type name separately for better performance
+ bool isInMoqLanguageNamespace = string.Equals(containingType.ContainingNamespace?.ToDisplayString(), "Moq.Language", StringComparison.Ordinal);
+ if (!isInMoqLanguageNamespace) return false;Then update the checks to use containingType.Name instead of the full display string.
Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs at line
116, replace the use of containingType.ToDisplayString() with a direct property
access like containingType.Name to reduce overhead. This change improves
performance by avoiding the more expensive ToDisplayString() call and using the
simpler, faster symbol property instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@coderabbitai make an issue for this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧩 Analysis chain
@rjmurillo I've created a GitHub issue to track the performance optimization for replacing ToDisplayString() with direct symbol property access in the benchmark code.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Create GitHub issue for performance optimization in benchmark code
gh issue create \
--title "Performance optimization: Replace ToDisplayString() with direct symbol property access in benchmarks" \
--body "## Summary
The benchmark code in \`CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs\` uses \`containingType.ToDisplayString()\` which can be relatively expensive compared to accessing symbol properties directly. For performance benchmarks, using more direct symbol property access would be more appropriate.
## Context
This issue was identified during code review of the benchmark implementation for callback and returns symbol detection.
## References
- PR: https://github.com/rjmurillo/moq.analyzers/pull/429
- Comment: https://github.com/rjmurillo/moq.analyzers/pull/429#discussion_r2134957540
- Reported by: @rjmurillo
## Location
File: \`tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs\`
Method: \`NewIsCallbackOrReturnSymbol\`" \
--assignee rjmurillo
Length of output: 948
@rjmurillo Perfect! I've successfully created GitHub issue #460 to track the performance optimization for replacing ToDisplayString() with direct symbol property access in the benchmark code.
The issue is now available at: #460
The issue includes:
- Clear description of the performance concern
- Context about where it was identified
- References back to this PR and comment thread
- Assignment to you for tracking
This will help ensure the performance optimization gets proper attention in a future iteration.
🧬 Code Graph Analysis Results
Possibly relevant snippets from tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/CSharpCompilationCreator.cs (lines 11-57)
internal static class CSharpCompilationCreator
{
public static async Task<Compilation?> CreateAsync((string, string)[] sourceFiles)
{
(Project project, _) = await CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync(
sourceFiles,
null,
"TestProject",
LanguageNames.CSharp,
"/0/Test",
"cs",
new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary),
new CSharpParseOptions(LanguageVersion.Default),
ReferenceAssemblies.Default).ConfigureAwait(false);
return await project.GetCompilationAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
public static async Task<Compilation?> CreateAsync((string, string)[] sourceFiles, ReferenceAssemblies referenceAssemblies)
{
(Project project, _) = await CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync(
sourceFiles,
null,
"TestProject",
LanguageNames.CSharp,
"/0/Test",
"cs",
new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary),
new CSharpParseOptions(LanguageVersion.Default),
referenceAssemblies).ConfigureAwait(false);
return await project.GetCompilationAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
public static async Task<(Compilation? Compilation, AnalyzerOptions Options)> CreateWithOptionsAsync((string, string)[] sourceFiles, (string, string)[] globalOptions)
{
(Project project, AnalyzerOptions options) = await CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync(
sourceFiles,
globalOptions,
"TestProject",
LanguageNames.CSharp,
"/0/Test",
"cs",
new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary),
new CSharpParseOptions(LanguageVersion.Default),
ReferenceAssemblies.Default).ConfigureAwait(false);
return (await project.GetCompilationAsync().ConfigureAwait(false), options);
}
}Summary:
This helper class provides asynchronous methods to create Roslyn Compilation objects from source code strings. It uses a CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync method to create a project with specified source files and compilation options, then retrieves the compilation. It supports creating compilations with default or custom reference assemblies and can also return analyzer options. This is directly relevant to the benchmark file's Setup method where CSharpCompilationCreator.CreateAsync is called to create a compilation for the benchmark sources.
[no other relevant code snippets]
| bool isCallback = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal) | ||
| && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential false positive matches with StartsWith check.
The StartsWith check for containing type names could match unintended types. For example, a type named "Moq.Language.ICallbackExtended" would incorrectly match the callback check.
Use exact string comparison or check the full type name:
- bool isCallback = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal)
- && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal);
+ bool isCallback = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal)
+ && string.Equals(containingTypeName, "Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| bool isCallback = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal) | |
| && containingTypeName.StartsWith("Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal); | |
| bool isCallback = string.Equals(symbol.Name, "Callback", StringComparison.Ordinal) | |
| && string.Equals(containingTypeName, "Moq.Language.ICallback", StringComparison.Ordinal); |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs at lines
118-119, the use of StartsWith for checking containingTypeName can cause false
positives by matching unintended types. Replace the StartsWith check with an
exact string comparison or verify the full type name to ensure only the intended
type "Moq.Language.ICallback" matches.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@coderabbitai make an issue for this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧩 Analysis chain
@rjmurillo I've created a GitHub issue for the potential false positive bug in the StartsWith check. The issue has been assigned to you and includes all the relevant details about the problem, its impact, and references to this PR and comment thread.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Create GitHub issue for the StartsWith false positive bug
gh issue create \
--title "Potential false positive matches with StartsWith check in callback/returns symbol detection" \
--body "## Description
A potential bug was identified in the callback/returns symbol detection logic that could cause false positive matches.
## Problem
In \`tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs\` (lines 118-119), the current implementation uses \`StartsWith\` to check containing type names:
\`\`\`csharp
bool isCallback = string.Equals(symbol.Name, \"Callback\", StringComparison.Ordinal)
&& containingTypeName.StartsWith(\"Moq.Language.ICallback\", StringComparison.Ordinal);
\`\`\`
This approach could incorrectly match unintended types. For example, a type named \"Moq.Language.ICallbackExtended\" would incorrectly match the callback check, leading to false positives.
## Impact
This could cause the symbol detection logic to incorrectly identify methods as callback or return symbols when they shouldn't be, potentially affecting analyzer behavior.
## Suggested Solution
Replace the \`StartsWith\` check with exact string comparison to ensure only the intended types \"Moq.Language.ICallback\" and \"Moq.Language.IReturns\" match.
## References
- Original PR: https://github.com/rjmurillo/moq.analyzers/pull/429
- Comment: https://github.com/rjmurillo/moq.analyzers/pull/429#discussion_r2134957541
- Reported by: @rjmurillo" \
--assignee rjmurillo
Length of output: 1451
@rjmurillo Perfect! I've successfully created the issue for you.
Issue #461 has been created: #461
The issue includes:
- Clear description of the StartsWith false positive problem
- Code example showing the problematic lines
- Impact assessment
- Suggested solution approach
- References to this PR and comment thread
- Assignment to you
The issue is now ready for tracking and can be addressed in a future PR.
🧬 Code Graph Analysis Results
Possibly relevant snippets from tests/Moq.Analyzers.Benchmarks/Helpers/CSharpCompilationCreator.cs (lines 11-57)
internal static class CSharpCompilationCreator
{
public static async Task<Compilation?> CreateAsync((string, string)[] sourceFiles)
{
(Project project, _) = await CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync(
sourceFiles,
null,
"TestProject",
LanguageNames.CSharp,
"/0/Test",
"cs",
new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary),
new CSharpParseOptions(LanguageVersion.Default),
ReferenceAssemblies.Default).ConfigureAwait(false);
return await project.GetCompilationAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
public static async Task<Compilation?> CreateAsync((string, string)[] sourceFiles, ReferenceAssemblies referenceAssemblies)
{
(Project project, _) = await CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync(
sourceFiles,
null,
"TestProject",
LanguageNames.CSharp,
"/0/Test",
"cs",
new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary),
new CSharpParseOptions(LanguageVersion.Default),
referenceAssemblies).ConfigureAwait(false);
return await project.GetCompilationAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
public static async Task<(Compilation? Compilation, AnalyzerOptions Options)> CreateWithOptionsAsync((string, string)[] sourceFiles, (string, string)[] globalOptions)
{
(Project project, AnalyzerOptions options) = await CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync(
sourceFiles,
globalOptions,
"TestProject",
LanguageNames.CSharp,
"/0/Test",
"cs",
new CSharpCompilationOptions(OutputKind.DynamicallyLinkedLibrary),
new CSharpParseOptions(LanguageVersion.Default),
ReferenceAssemblies.Default).ConfigureAwait(false);
return (await project.GetCompilationAsync().ConfigureAwait(false), options);
}
}Summary:
This helper class provides asynchronous methods to create Roslyn Compilation objects from given source code strings. It uses a CompilationCreator.CreateProjectAsync method to create a Project and then obtains the Compilation from it. It supports optional reference assemblies and global analyzer options. This is directly relevant to the Setup method in CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs where CSharpCompilationCreator.CreateAsync is called to create a compilation from source code strings for benchmarking.
No other snippets appear relevant to understanding or addressing the content of CallbackReturnsSymbolBenchmarks.cs.
- Changed `var` declarations to explicit type `IMethodSymbol[]` for clarity and consistency. - Added spacing for improved readability in the Setup method and related checks. This refactor enhances code clarity and maintains consistent coding standards across the benchmark tests.
…chmarkDotNet compatibility - Added `#pragma warning disable VSTHRD002` to allow synchronous waiting on tasks in the setup method, ensuring compatibility with BenchmarkDotNet. - Restored the warning after the compilation to maintain code quality. This change is necessary for the benchmark tests to function correctly while ensuring that the code remains clear and maintainable.
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit bdc2bcd and detected 2 issues on this pull request. Here's the issue category breakdown:
View more on Code Climate. |
- Added blank lines for better separation of code blocks, enhancing overall readability. - Maintained existing functionality while improving code clarity. This change contributes to a cleaner and more maintainable benchmark setup.
Summary
Summary by CodeRabbit