Add Moq.Analyzers #6253
Add Moq.Analyzers #6253
Conversation
| @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ | |||
| <PackageVersion Include="Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.BannedApiAnalyzers" Version="$(MicrosoftCodeAnalysisBannedApiAnalyzersVersion)" /> | |||
| <PackageVersion Include="Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.PublicApiAnalyzers" Version="$(MicrosoftCodeAnalysisPublicApiAnalyzersVersion)" /> | |||
| <PackageVersion Include="Microsoft.VisualStudio.Threading.Analyzers" Version="17.14.15" /> | |||
| <PackageVersion Include="Moq.Analyzers" Version="0.3.0" /> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: This package is BSD-3-Clause license. I'm not super familiar with that but thought it's worth noting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have seen other projects using it so we should be fine. The only question is whether we need to specify that in the third-party licenses given this is only for testing and not shipped.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we need it in third-party-notices indeed.
| @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ public void GetFullPathToDependentAssembliesShouldReturnV1FrameworkAssembly() | |||
| GetReferencedAssembliesSetter = () => [v1AssemblyName], | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| var mockAssemblyUtility = new Mock<IAssemblyUtility>(); | |||
| var mockAssemblyUtility = new Mock<IAssemblyUtility>(MockBehavior.Loose); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel this analyzer is too annoying. There is nothing very wrong with not specifying the "default" MockBehavior.Loose.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's always about making explicit choice, we have something similar about parallelization in MSTest. Ideally, we should only mock with strict level to ensure no other API is called (another analyzer is set for that).
I am happy to undo changes and reduce severity of this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally, we should only mock with strict level
I do agree, but I think we are too far from reaching there.
I'm fine as-is then, even though I personally don't see a point when specifying Loose everywhere. The advantage I can see here is for tests that will be written in future. This might ring a bell for us to not rely on Loose and have the new tests going into the right direction.
|
Hello @@Evangelink, |
No description provided.