fxcop

What are some of the strategies that are used when implementing FxCop / static analysis on existing code bases with existing violations? How can one most effectively reduce the static analysis violations? Make liberal use of [SuppressMessage] attribute to begin with. At least at the beginning. Once you get the count to 0 via the attribute, you then put in a rule that new checkins may not introduce FxCop violations. Visual Studio 2008 has a nice code analysis feature that allows you to ensure that code analysis runs on every build and you can treat warnings as errors. That might slow things

I'll prefix by saying that I understand that both Code Analysis and StyleCop are meant as guidelines, and many people chose to ignore these anyway. But having said that, I'd like to see what the general consensus is with regard to these two rules. Rule CA1500 says don't make parameter names and private field names the same. Rule SA1309 , on the other hand, says don't prefix members with underscore or "m_". This leaves us with little options for distinguishing private backing fields from their corresponding parameters. Take these examples. SA1309 complains: class SomeClass { int _someField;

In a project I'm working on FxCop shows me lots of (and I mean more than 400) errors on the InitializeComponent() methods generated by the Windows Forms designer. Most of those errors are just the assignment of the Text property of labels. I'd like to suppress those methods in source, so I copied the suppression code generated by FxCop into AssemblyInfo.cs, but it doesn't work. This is the attribute that FxCop copied to the clipboard. [module: SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Globalization", "CA1303:DoNotPassLiteralsAsLocalizedParameters", Scope = "member", Target = "WindowsClient.MainForm

Recently I switched on additional code analyses rules. To my surprise I saw a violation in a place I was always considering as the best practice. If I have two nested disposables I am putting two using statements like this: using (StringReader strReader = new StringReader(xmlString)) using (XmlReader xmlReader = XmlReader.Create(strReader)) { result.ReadXml(xmlReader); } This also corresponds to the high rated Q&A Nested using statements in C# The violation I get states following: Warning 18 CA2202 : Microsoft.Usage : Object 'strReader' can be disposed more than once in method '????'. To avoid

Pretty simple question: When i have a persistable object, it usually has a property called ID (for abstract classes). So .. is the naming convention ID or Id? eg. public int ID { get; set; } or public int Id { get; set; } cheers :) PS. This is for .NET btw. FXCop conformat would be a bonus. I usually go with Identifier . If I really want to keep it short (as part of a longer identifier, for example), I use Id, unless it's a parameter or private member. The .NET Framework Naming Guidelines say this: An acronym is a word that is formed from the letters of words in a term or phrase. For example,

I know Visual Studio 2010 has a new Code Analysis tool built in , but that is only for the premium and ultimate editions. From what I can see the latest FxCop supports .NET 3.5 SP1 . Searching I wasn't able to find any references to an FxCop for .NET 4.0. Is there plans to continue to offer FxCop and for it to support .NET 4.0? Where would I find more information about it and download it? The latest version of FXCop (v10) is bundled with the install of the latest Windows SDK for Windows 7 and .Net 4, released on 5/19/2010. From Microsoft - Full ISOs Once the SDK is installed you can find the